Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CRIMINALS

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will undertake that the behaviour of Marshal Badoglio in Ethiopia will be brought to the attention of the United Nations Tribunal for the trial of war criminals?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The scope of the work of the proposed United Nations Commission for the investigation of war crimes is a matter for decision by all the Allied Governments concerned. It will not be for His Majesty's Government to submit to the Commission evidence of war crimes committed neither in British territory nor against British subjects.

Major Adams: Would not one of the purposes for which we are fighting be frustrated if we allowed to go untried a man with such an infamous record of cruelty?

Major Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the agreement of His Majesty's Government to President Roosevelt's undertaking that Benito Mussolini will not be allowed to escape?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government recently consulted the United States and Soviet Governments with a view to issuing a warning to certain neutral countries against providing shelter or protection to Mussolini, prominent Fascists and other war criminals, who might try to seek asylum in neutral territory. As a result of these consultations, His Majesty's Representatives at Angora, Berne, Buenos Aires, Lisbon, Madrid, Stockholm and the Vatican were instructed to make a com-

munication in the following terms to the Governments to which they are accredited:
In view of developments in Italy and the possibility that Mussolini and other prominent Fascists and persons guilty of war crimes may attempt to take refuge in neutral territory, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom feel obliged to call upon all neutral countries to refuse asylum to any such persons; and to declare that they will regard any shelter, assistance or protection given to such persons as a violation of the principles for which the United Nations are fighting and which they are determined to carry into effect by every means in their power.

Major Adams: Has the right hon. Gentleman any certain knowledge of the whereabouts of this prince among rats?

Mr. Eden: I have no certain knowledge. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any, perhaps he will tell me.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will my right hon. Friend consider going further than the statement he has made and declare that any action by neutrals on those lines will be looked upon as a definitely unfriendly act?

Mr. Eden: The words I have used are words which have been agreed with the United States and the Russian Governments, and I should not be prepared to amend them.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Nevertheless, is it not true to say that grass grows over any battlefield hut over the scaffold never?

Major Adams: Is it presumed that Mussolini is still in Italy?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Has a favourable reply been received to this communication?

Mr. Eden: That is the subject of another Question.

Major Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind during the rising of the House the rising tide of public opinion that there is about this matter?

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what replies have been received to the Notes sent by Great Britain and other Allied Governments to the neutral Powers calling upon them not to give asylum to war criminals; and in this connection, whether


he is aware that Ribbentrop has recently been negotiating the purchase of a villa in Switzerland?

Mr. Eden: None, Sir. With regard to the second part of the Question, I should be interested to receive any information which my hon. Friend may have in his possession.

Sir W. Davison: How is it that the Foreign Office is so often without information on matters which are known to the public, whose information is subsequently proved to be correct? Is he also aware that Hitler has just stated that giving the right of asylum is one of the most prized rights of neutral Powers?

Mr. Eden: I quite understand Hitler's interest in the right of asylum. He has not hitherto shown any particular desire to respect the rights of any other country.

Mr. George Griffiths: How long is it since Ribbentrop went to Cliveden?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRINCE PAUL OF YUGOSLAVIA

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the name of Prince Paul of Yugoslavia has been, or is to be, given as a war criminal to the United Nations Tribunal for the trial of war criminals?

Mr. Eden: It will be open to any of the United Nations Governments to submit to the proposed United Nations Commission for the investigation of war crimes evidence of such crimes committed on its territory or against its own nationals.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of Yugoslavs consider that this man's treacherous collaboration with the Axis has been responsible for an untold amount of misery, humiliation and death, and does he appreciate that the evasive answer that I have received will be taken as an indication of how in the future exalted war criminals are going to be protected and so escape justice?

Mr. Eden: My answer is no respect evasive. It says this is the business of the Yugoslavs themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY

United Nations' Demand

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the honourable conditions of peace offered to the Italians by the United Nations, as stated in General Eisenhower's recent broadcast address to them?

Mr. Eden: As I stated on 30th July, no peace terms have been offered to the Italians. We continue to demand unconditional surrender.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it came about that General Eisenhower talked in his broadcast of honourable conditions of peace for the Italians? Unconditional surrender does not mean that, surely?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I want to argue the matter now. Our position is unconditional surrender, and I can conceive of circumstances in which unconditional surrender might not be dishonourable to those who made it.

Mr. Tinker: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will stick to those terms, whatever happens.

House of Savoy

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an official proclamation commending the House of Savoy to the Italian people; and whether, in order to prevent misunderstanding, he will make a statement on the subject?

Mr. Eden: As a mater of accuracy, I think the hon. Member will find that the proclamation did not commend the House of Savoy to the Italian people. It commended the House of Savoy for getting rid of Mussolini. I cannot believe that the hon. Member would quarrel with that.

Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the opinion of the majority of people here, in America and in Russia is that the whole House of Savoy is not worth a single Brussels sprout and should be sent to the garbage heap with the other Fascists?

Captain Alan Graham: Is it not a fact that among the Italian people the House of Savoy still retains considerable popularity?

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman any definite information that the House of Savoy did get rid of Mussolini? Was it not taken on the initiative of the Italian people?

Mr. Eden: We could go on discussing these things for a long time. As far as my reports go, which are only those in the Press, I understand that it was the decision of the Grand Council. I have no idea what part the King played.

Sir H. Williams: Does the House gain anything by indulging in childish rudeness about the heads of other States?

Form of Government

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will take no action that would limit the freedom of the Italian people to choose, by a constituent assembly or otherwise, their own government and form of government?

Mr. Eden: I am not prepared at this stage to add anything to the statement on the Government's policy which was made by the Prime Minister on 27th July and by myself last night.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (POLITICAL SITUATION)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information on recent events in Spain, and the possibility of the revival of the Monarchy; and what are the views of His Majesty's Government on this matter?

Mr. Eden: I am not aware to what events the hon. Member is referring, but I am of course kept fully informed of the situation in Spain by His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid. The possibility of the revival of the Monarchy is an internal question for the Spanish people themselves to decide, and His Majesty's Government are not prepared to express a view on the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand that the Government will give no encouragement to the restoration of the Monarchy?

Mr. Eden: I think my answer clearly shows that we regard this as a matter for the Spanish people. We do not propose to express a view either one way or the other.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that, whether there is a Monarchy or not, we will not forget that General Franco's Government is a Fascist Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL LIBERATION

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the agreement which has been reached between Generals de Gaulle and Giraud and the appointment of General Giraud as Commander-in-Chief and of General Legentilhomme as War Minister, His Majesty's Government will now accord de facto recognition to the French Committee of National Liberation?

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent arrangements, His Majesty's Government will now recognise the French Committee of National Liberation?

Mr. Eden: I welcome the arrangements referred to as representing a still further contribution to French unity and to the concentration of French efforts in the war. His Majesty's Government are in consultation with the major Allied Governments on the question of recognition. I cannot say any more at present.

Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people would be very glad to see recognition accorded to the French National Committee at the earliest possible time?

Mr. Eden: I am aware of that feeling, but I also think the House will feel that it is desirable to try to do this together with all the principal Allied Powers.

Mr. Hammersley: Has not our recent experience shown the desirability of having a recognised authority with whom to deal on behalf of the liberated peoples, and is it not desirable to get that authority recognised as soon as possible?

Mr. Eden: I do not understand my hon. Friend's comparison. In this case we are dealing with a friendly Power.

Mr. Astor: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication when he will be able to make a statement?

Mr. Eden: I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE)

Professor A. V. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees has now been reconstituted and given power to deal with postwar as well as present aspects of the problem of refugees; what are its membership and terms of reference; and whether it has yet met?

Mr. Eden: The first meeting of the Executive Committee of the Inter-Governmental Committee is being held to-day. It will be for the Executive itself, which consists of representatives of the Argentine, Brazilian, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States Governments and a French representative to make recommendations to the other members of the Committee regarding its future scope and functions, but I may say that it is certainly intended that the Committee should deal with both the present and the post-war aspects of the refugee problem.

Mr. Graham White: Can my right hon. Friend say by what means the experience and service of people with wide knowledge in this field who may not be Members of the Government will be made available to the Committee?

Mr. Eden: That is one of the points which the Committee will consider at their meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR, GERMANY (NEGOTIATIONS FOR EXCHANGE)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of a recent German broadcast announcement, negotiations for the exchange of badly wounded prisoners from that country are in progress; and whether the possibility of interning long-term prisoners in neutral countries, as in the last war, is being considered?

Mr. Eden: I am glad to say that negotiations on this subject have, after a long interruption, been resumed. As regards the second part of the Question, if my hon. and gallant Friend refers to prisoners who have been in captivity for a long time, a suggestion of this kind has been received from the International Red Cross Committee, and is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Rome (Bombing)

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Air what were the approximate distances of allied bombs from St. Peters and the Vatican City in the recent bombing of Rome?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The photographic evidence so far available shows that no bombs fell nearer to St. Peter's and the Vatican City than those which fell in the San Lorenzo marshalling yards, about three miles away.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 14,000 churches and ecclesiastical buildings in this country have been destroyed or seriously damaged by Italian and German aircraft, including the complete destruction of the Roman Catholic pro-cathedral in Kensington, and has any expression of sympathy been sent to the British Government in regard to the destruction of and damage to these sacred buildings by his Holiness the Pope?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is true we have suffered very severe damage to our old and beautiful buildings in this country, but as to whether any message of sympathy has been received, my hon. Friend should address his Question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Why should Roman Catholic susceptibilities be considered any more than Protestant susceptibilities?

Mr. Driberg: To be quite fair, is it not the case that the Pope has sent letters of sympathy and also given money for the repair of damaged churches in Britain? And can the right hon. Gentleman say how near bombs fell to the Cathedral of Rome?

Sir A. Sinclair: I did not say we had not received any letter, but I am not prepared to answer a question on that, as it is a matter rather for the Foreign Secretary than for me.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?

Sir A. Sinclair: As I have already said, St. Peter's is about three miles away.

Mr. Hannah: St. Peter's is not the Cathedral of Rome.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman really unaware that St. Peter's is not the Cathedral of Rome? The Cathedral of Rome is St. John Lateran.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Do air photographs show the extent of the damage to the Church of San Lorenzo, and has not the damage been exaggerated?

Sir A. Sinclair: The air photographs show very little damage to that particular building, but as is often the case, it is quite possible that more damage has been done than appears on the photographs. I am sorry that I did not catch the question of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) about damage to some particular building, but if he will put it down, I will answer it.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the Pope has read the "Battle of Britain"?

Royal Observer Corps

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will provide officers of the Royal Observer Corps who are compelled to travel by road on duty with Service motor cars or grant them an allowance adequate for maintenance, upkeep and depreciation?

Sir A. Sinclair: An officer of the Royal Observer Corps who is required to use his private car for official purposes receives an annual allowance and a mileage allowance, which vary according to the horsepower of the car. These allowances are the same as those issuable to other civilians who use their cars on Government service and are, I understand, adequate to cover not only the expenses referred to, but others such as tax and insurance as well. The question of providing Service cars arises in those cases where the replacement of worn-out cars presents exceptional difficulty. It is at present being explored.

Personnel, Mediterranean Area (Anti-glare Glasses).

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Air why Royal Air Force personnel in the Middle East are not issued with sun glasses?

Sir A. Sinclair: Anti-glare glasses are now being issued to all officers and men

of the Royal Air Force in the Mediterranean area as supplies permit.

Mr. Dugdale: When is it anticipated that personnel will actually receive a supply? Are they on their way now?

Sir A. Sinclair: Large numbers of personnel have had them the whole time the fighting has been going on in the Mediterranean area. It is possible now to increase the issues, and they will be increased as supplies increase.

Air Training Corps (Bands)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many bands exist in the Air Training Cadet Corps; to what purpose they are put; and what part they play in the training and recreation of the corps and for the benefit of the civilian community?

Sir A. Sinclair: There are 279 bands in the Air Training Corps. They attend parades and other official functions of units of the Corps and also play as required at A.T.C. social and recreational activities.

Women's Auxiliary Air Force

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether members of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force are allowed to remove their tunics when off duty or when driving vehicles in hot weather; and whether it is proposed to introduce regulations to harmonise with those in force in the other women's services?

Sir A. Sinclair: An instruction was recently issued permitting W.A.A.F. personnel to take off their jackets when walking out during the summer months. Drivers of vehicles have always been permitted to take off their jackets, subject to the authority of their Commanding Officer.

Pay and Allowances (Personnel, Canada)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement showing the relative positions in the pay allotments to dependants and the eligibility of dependants to allowances of British airmen serving at home and in Canada; and whether he will explain why the men serving in Canada are relatively worse off than those serving at home?

Sir A. Sinclair: As the information asked for is somewhat long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the information indicate that men serving in Canada are not worse off than men in this country?

Sir A. Sinclair: The information will answer every point which my hon. Friend has put to me in the Question.

Following is the statement:

British airmen serving in Canada in the combined training organisation draw pay at the same rates as members of the Royal Canadian Air Force. These are, in general, more favourable than normal Royal Air Force rates. The families and other dependants of British airmen serving in Canada, if they are in this country, draw allowances at normal Royal Air Force rates.

In order to qualify for the issue of these allowances, British airmen in Canada are required to allot or assign the same proportion of their pay as Royal Canadian Air Force airmen are required to do. Since the Royal Canadian Air Force scale of assigned pay is substantially higher than the scales of allotment in the Royal Air Force system, it is possible for the net pay issuable to a British airman in Canada to be slightly less than what he would have received had he remained in this country, though the same as that issuable in Canada to Canadian airmen similarly placed.

In the case of married airmen, the assigned pay is paid to their families together with family allowance; so that the families benefit in full from the assigned pay. Where dependant's allowance is in issue, the assigned pay constitutes the airman's contribution to the dependant's allowance of which it is an integral part, the principle governing dependant's allowance being to assist the airman in maintaining his pre-enlistment contribution to his dependant's support.

These arrangements are at present under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Airports

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any decisions

have been reached in regard to the allocation of post-war civil airports in this country?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, but the technical problems involved are being closely studied.

Sir T. Moore: May I assume that my right hon. Friend is bearing in mind the excellent suitability of Scotland in this matter?

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, Sir.

Post-War Transport

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future of British air transport?

Sir A. Sinclair: The future of British civil air transport raises wide issues of Imperial and foreign policy. Consultations are going forward about these matters with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and with the Government of India, and we are awaiting replies to certain communications. Therefore, I cannot now make any further statement.

Mr. Perkins: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will make a full statement when the House reassembles after the Recess?

Sir A. Sinclair: I fully anticipate that when the House reassembles my hon. Friend will address a further Question to me, and I will then make the fullest answer I can.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not important that the Government should come to an early decision on this subject, which vitally affects the Mercantile Marine and involves other important issues?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is important that we should come to a decision, but our Government is not the only Government concerned.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Will my right hon. Friend also consult with the Colonial Governments, which are very much involved?

Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Colonial Secretary is taking an intimate part in these discussions.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that some of the Dominions think that a conference on this subject is highly desirable? Does my right hon. Friend contemplate inviting them to a conference?

Sir A. Sinclair: That is exactly the type of question I cannot answer at this stage. I have said that certain communications have been made to certain Governments, and we are awaiting their answers. Pending the receipt of their answers, I cannot make a further statement.

British Overseas Airways Corporation (Accounts)

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Secretary of State for Air why the Report and Statement of Accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1942, were only presented to the House on 27th July, 1943, a delay of nearly 16 months?

Sir A. Sinclair: The material from which these Accounts and the Report are compiled comes from many different and often distant parts of the world and its assembly in present circumstances necessarily take time. When the Accounts are finally available, they have first to be examined by the Corporation's auditors and then examined by my Department from the security aspect. The Report, which has also to be passed by the security authorities, cannot be completed in advance of the Accounts. There has in fact been no avoidable delay in the preparation and presentation of these documents.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (LENDLEASE)

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production the value of aircraft factories erected in the United States of America by British money, from the sale of British securties and by other means prior to Lend-Lease, and the value of aircraft and component parts purchased in the same way?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Ben Smith): It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Gammans: Can my hon. Friend say why it is that this information

cannot be given, in view of the fact that the Americans have stated the amount of their Lend-Lease to this country and we have given the amount of our Lend-Lease to Russia?

Mr. Smith: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUS SERVICES, WEST YORKSHIRE

Mr. Turton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has now reconsidered the effect of the action of the West Yorkshire Road Car Company and other omnibus operators in withdrawing unlimited travel facilities; and whether he will now issue instructions to enable workers to make necessary journeys in connection with their work at no greater expense than before the unlimited travel facilities were withdrawn?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has considered the protest of the Keighley Borough Council and other expressions of local opinion against the withdrawal of contract tickets by the West Yorkshire Road Car Company Limited; and whether he is now prepared to restore such tickets?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have carefully reconsidered the withdrawal of unlimited travel tickets on omnibus services in Yorkshire, and I have done so in the light of the representations made by my hon. Friends and of the expressions of local opinion which I have received. As I have informed my hon. Friends, certain changes in the new fare system have been made, in order to meet the convenience of regular passengers. I hope that, with these changes, the new system will help to discourage unnecessary travel, without imposing any hardship on regular travellers making essential journeys in connection with their work. The need to discourage unnecessary travel is so imperative that I am afraid I do not think it is wise or desirable to restore unlimited travel tickets.

Mr. Turton: Is not the effect of the present situation that many workers are paying more than double the fares they


previously paid and not a single bus service has been curtailed, and the bus companies are receiving extra profits without giving any compensating advantages?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I should like to assure him that the question of profit has nothing whatever to do with it. This measure was introduced on our instructions and not on the initiative of the bus company. There have been economies in transport both by the taking off of duplicate buses at non-peak hours and by the reduction of overcrowding, which is singularly undesirable from a transport point of view. I think most workers arc only paying slightly more unless they go home to their lunch. If they do not go home to lunch, if there is any increase at all it is very slight.

Mr. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my own constituency it is not possible to accommodate the contract holders at lunch-time and therefore that there can be no curtailment of travelling?

Mr. Noel-Baker: According to the information I have received, there is spare capacity in the existing British Restaurant, and if necessary the authorities would be willing to open another.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has not reduced facilities by a single journey, and the only thing he has done, in spite of his assurances, is to put unlimited sums of money into the pockets of the bus company?

Mr. Noel-Baker: At the instance of my hon. Friend I have examined this question many times, and I assure him he is wrong.

Mr. Cluse: Is it not a fact that in London normal travellers have been paying increased fares as the result of this reorganisation?

Mr. Turton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL IMPORTS, EIRE

Professor Savory: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that Axis representatives have been seen in Eire

touring the Irish countryside in motor-cars driven by American petrol which British sailors have risked their lives to bring to Britain and whether he has taken any steps to put a stop to the importation of petrol into Eire?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Deliveries of petroleum products to Eire have been very drastically reduced. My hon. Friend will, I am certain, agree that we must ensure the continued export to the United Kingdom of the valuable agricultural products which we receive from Eire. It is not practicable to control the uses to which the Eire authorities may put their very limited supplies of petroleum products.

Professor Savory: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the statement in the Question is based on an authoritative document which is absolutely irrefutable, and if he will spy Strangers I shall be glad to read the whole paper to the House?

Sir Joseph Lamb: Can the hon. Gentleman say which of the Axis representatives are exporting agricultural produce to this country?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think, if my hon. Friend will look at my answer, he will see that I did not make that suggestion.

Major Petherick: Will the hon. Gentleman see that any imports of petrol into Eire must be carried either in Eire ships or in neutral ships without the protection of the British Navy?

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS

Sir Douglas Thomson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the appointment of the Director of Alternative Motor Fuels as Regional Transport Commissioner for the Eastern Region, it is proposed to abolish the former office?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I informed my hon. Friend in answer to a Question on 29th June, the whole position is being reviewed, and new arrangements will shortly be made.

Sir D. Thomson: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the creation of this post of Director of Alternative Motor Fuels is not designed merely to find a job for someone?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I can certainly give that assurance.

Major Lyons: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the gentleman appointed to this post in the Eastern counties is getting both appointments, one in London and the other in the Eastern counties?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, but that is at our request. It is very hard work for him, but it is to the public advantage.

Major Manningham-Buller: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether Regional Transport Commissioners, other than the Commissioner for the Eastern Region, are allowed by their terms of employment to hold other offices?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Regional Transport Commissioners are required by the terms of their appointment to devote the whole of their time to the duties of their post, but, as a temporary arrangement, the recently appointed Commissioner for the Eastern Region has continued to supervise a piece of special work on which he was previously engaged. As I have just informed the lion. Baronet the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson), this arrangement will shortly come to an end.

Captain Crowder: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what qualifications the Regional Transport Commissioner for the Eastern region has for this post?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Sir Alfred Faulkner has had many years of administrative experience, including experience in various branches of transport.

Captain Crowder: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the age of this gentleman?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Not without notice, but I think he is of suitable age for the duty he is performing.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

First-class Coaches

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether the London and North Eastern Railway Company notified him of their intention to convert certain pre-war third-class coaches into first-class carriages; whether he is aware that a

large amount of this type of rolling stock, with the addition of antimacassars and carpets, is now re-labelled as first-class and offered as accommodation for first-class passengers; and will he put an end to this practice?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The coaches to which my hon. Friend refers have only one door at each end of the corridor side. This makes it possible to provide better lighting in the black-out. When white lighting was authorised in 1940 for main line trains, the London and North Eastern Railway had not enough first-class coaches of this type to meet their needs; they therefore adapted a few new third-class coaches and used them as first-class accommodation. I do not think I should be justified in asking the company to reconvert these carriages to third-class, since to do so would involve using other first-class stock which could not be so adequately lighted.

Mr. Walkden: Is there any real reason to continue this sort of camouflage, which only encourages more and more people to try to obtain first-class privileges? Will the hon. Gentleman now consider advising the railways to abolish the sale of first-class tickets altogether? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Why not?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a different question, but if the hon. Member will put it on the Paper, I will answer it.

Tidal Basin Station, West Ham (Closing)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why the Tidal Basin Station on the London and North Eastern Railway in the Borough of West Ham, has been closed, as the station serves a big working population; and what action he intends taking in the matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The number of passenger journeys made from this station in 1942 was only 4 per cent. of the number made in 1939. The regional transport commissioner ascertained that the few passengers still using the station could be carried by the existing road services. The station was, therefore, closed, in order that the staff of seven might be transferred to other places where additional personnel was urgently required.

Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend aware that this station is right in the middle


of a working, factory and dock population, and that passengers have now to walk three-quarters of a mile?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is not my information. During 1942 the traffic was so small that passenger receipts were under £1 a day. I do not think we can justify keeping seven men on the station for that traffic. If the traffic is increased and my hon. Friend will give me the facts I will look into them again.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Was it not waste on the part of the railway companies to keep so many people on that job?

Long Distance Journeys (Liquid Refreshment)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience caused to passengers on long railway journeys that when the train arrives at one of the big stations on the way there are not adequate means to provide them with liquid refreshment; and whether he will consult with the railway companies to provide a supply of good drinking water easily accessible to the passengers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that it has not been possible to make wholly satisfactory arrangements for providing passengers on long-distance trains with liquid refreshment, including water. The supplies and the staffing of tea-rooms and refreshment rooms nave, however, been greatly improved in the last 12 months; drinking Water can be obtained in these refreshment rooms at all important stations; drinking fountains and taps on station platforms are prominently marked for the guidance of passengers; new water supplies have been installed at some stations. If my hon. Friend has any particular places in mind, and will let me know of them, I will see whether anything further can be done.

Mr. Tinker: Yes, Sir, and I can draw my hon. Friend's attention to two instances in particular. They are Rugby and Crewe, to which I travel regularly. I se no signs at all there of drinking water. All I am asking is that this matter should be examined. It is a terrible nuisance in these times that no one should be able to get a drink of water in our refreshment rooms. Surely soldiers and other passengers are entitled to a drink.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My experience of the refreshment rooms at Crewe and Rugby is that they have been greatly improved. I will certainly look into the question of the supply of drinking water.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would my hon. Friend also look into the cases of Peterborough and Grantham on the L.N.E.R.?

Bank Holiday Week-end Travel

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will make a statement on the amount of public passenger travel over the last week-end; and how many additional, special or duplicate passenger trains were run over the main line railways during that period?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am awaiting a detailed report from the railway companies on their passenger traffic during the August bank holiday week-end. When I have received this report, I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major Lyons: At the same time would my hon. Friend try to ascertain the information and let me know in a letter the amount of money which was spent by the railway companies in asking people not to travel?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will try to get the figure and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEA DELIVERIES, NORTHERN REGION

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why, and in what capacity, Mr. C. A. Birtchnell was authorised to sign the Emergency Powers (Defence) Retail Deliveries Tea Order (S.R. & 0., No. 1014 of 1943), whereby Ringtons, Limited, of Algernon Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 6, were prohibited from delivering tea except in accordance with the directions of the Regional Transport Commissioner of the Northern Region?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Mr. C. A. Birtchnell, C.B., is a Principal Assistant Secretary authorised by my Noble Friend to sign any document on his behalf. The Order in question was made on my instructions.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can my hon. Friend say why the official in question should not designate himself as such?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the practice on that matter varies, but I will inquire into it.

Sir H. Williams: Is not the hon. Gentleman's Ministry the only one where it is not done?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think not, but I will inquire.

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTAL TANKERS (OFFICER PERSONNEL)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that Government-owned coastal tankers up to Boo tons gross are carrying a master, one mate and another officer with the dual capacity of second mate and boatswain; that representations made to his Department on this inadequacy of officer personnel have been met with the reply that nothing can be done in the matter; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have made inquiries, and I find to my regret that a misunderstanding has been caused by a mistake in a letter sent by my Ministry. In fact, there is no Government-owned tanker in the coasting trade in which an officer is serving in the dual capacity of mate and bosun. There are, however, same small coasting tankers on which only one mate is carried in addition to the master. This arrangement is in accordance with the agreement of the National Maritime Board which applies to vessels of under 1,000 tons displacement.

Mr. Edwards: Will my hon. Friend not bear in mind that representations in respect of these vessels have been made by the appropriate trade union, and that his Department have turned them down? This is very damaging to the war effort, on account of the extra strain being placed on personnel, and will he reconsider the position if the union makes another request?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will consider anything. I am always glad to receive representatives of unions, but in the particular case which the officers' society brought to my attention I verified the position, and in my view there has been no overstrain on the officers concerned, as during the last three months the vessel has made only one short voyage every five days.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN SHIPS (TRANSFER TO UNITED STATES)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has any information as to the nature of the recent transaction between the United States of America and Canadian Governments on the transfer of Canadian vessels to the United States of America?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As my hon. Friend will recognise, any transaction between the Governments of Canada and the United States about the transfer of ships is a matter for those two Governments. For some time, no merchant vessels have been transferred by Canada to the United States, and, so far as I am aware, no merchant vessels have at any time been so transferred which have not been subsequently re-transferred on bare-boat charter to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not an Allied shipping pool, and are not the arrangements for the use of merchant shipping co-ordinated?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, certainly; and as a result of the co-ordination we have been getting ships on Lend-Lease terms as a result of extremely generous action by both Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

British and Allied Press

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether he is now satisfied with the attitude of British and Allied newspapers and journals, published in this country, towards each other?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): It would be unreasonable for a Minister of Information to expect satisfaction in anything; but if the hon. Member has in mind the subject of his Question of 23rd June, I may say there has been much less cause for dissatisfaction.

"The Week in Westminster" Broadcasts

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider inviting political pressmen, who are in attendance in the House, to broadcast in "The Week in Westminster" series, so as to furnish an objective survey?

Mr. Brackén: Invitations to broadcast in "The Week in Westminster" are issued by the B.B.C. themselves. They have already on one or two occasions invited political correspondents to broadcast in this series, but I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to their notice.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend reinforce this plea in the strongest terms? Is he not aware that some of the, broadcasts that we have had have been most incompetent and not at all objective, merely expressing hon. Member's personal views? Is it not better to put this matter into the hands of competent journalists who understand how to put it across?

Mr. Bracken: A competent journalist is not necessarily a good broadcaster, and, secondly, I am not going in any way to interfere with the speakers in "The Week in Westminster" If I did, hon. Members would say, "Why was I not asked to speak?" No, Sir, I will leave that matter with the Governors of the B.B.C., who enjoy a most opulent income for doing that very work.

Mr. Shinwell: On what basis are hon. Members selected? Have they to satisfy the Governors of the B.B.C. that they are competent, or is some kind of personal influence at work?

Mr. Bracken: The Governors of the B.B.C., being democrats, believe that if a mart is elected to Parliament he is capable of making a speech on the radio.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most popular speaker in the broadcasts is the Prime Minister?

Mr. Bracken: I have heard that suggestion before.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATION 18B (EXERCISE OF POWERS)

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the emergency powers of Regulation 18B, which gives rise to misgivings, controlling as it does the liberties of citizens, should no longer be exercised solely by the Home Secretary of the day but should now be transferred to a properly constituted legal tribunal, he will consider taking the necessary action?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The issue raised by my hon. Friend has

been debated in the House on more than one occasion, and it has been pointed out that the responsibility for deciding whether circumstances of suspicion exist warranting the restraint of some individual on grounds of public security, could not properly be placed on a legal tribunal. So long as exceptional powers are needed in the interests of national security they must be exercised by a Minister responsible to Parliament.

Sir I. Albery: Will the Prime Minister consider setting up a small Select Committee of this House to whom the Home Secretary would report in all cases when he takes action differing from the advice of his Advisory Committee?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir I. Albery: Does not the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is the duty of this House to protect the liberties of British citizens?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I think the House is as good a judge of its own duty as is the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS (POST-WAR CONTINUANCE)

Wing-Commander James: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the apprehension that has been aroused that the Ministry of Works is to continue as a Department after the war emergency period; and whether he will give an assurance that this will not be so, or that no decision will be made without affirmation by Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any considerable apprehension on this matter. The functions relating to Government lands and buildings previously discharged by the Office of Works, and now assigned by Statute to the Ministry of Works, are of course permanent, as is the legislation establishing the Ministry, unless repealed by Parliament. The powers relating to control of building materials, licensing of non-Government building and the like, which are now exercised by the Ministry by virtue of Orders in Council under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts will automatically fall to be reviewed when these Acts expire; any arrangements which may then seem necessary will require the sanction of Parliament. But hon. Members will realise


that as indicated in the White Paper on Training for the Building Industry (Cmd. 6428) that industry will occupy a special position in the Government's plans for reconstruction and employment after the war.

Wing-Commander James: Would the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the expressions in the Debate on Friday week last, when from all parts of the House there was almost universal condemnation of the present actions of the Ministry?

The Prime Minister: I think it would be most unjust if that were so, because I have rarely had the pleasure of working with a more competent Minister than the present Minister of Works.

Sir H. Williams: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are now six Departments separately responsible for different aspects of building and that it is impossible to get a decision about anything without reference to the six Departments?

Mr. Shinwell: May I be allowed to state that what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) does not represent opinion on this side of the House?

The Prime Minister: As to the six Departments, more and more of the actual conduct of affairs is passing into the hands of the Minister of Works.

Sir H. Williams: Is the Prime Minister aware that the powers of planning have recently been taken away from that Minister, and therefore powers of planning are passing away from him and not to him?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

British Restaurants

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in the case of those British Restaurants which have been created by local authorities other than in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Ministry of Food's circular, dated 15th November, 1940, the assets of the undertakings, including buildings and plant subject to the usual amortisation arrangements, are vested in the local authorities or in the Ministry; and, if the latter, whether, in regard to the management and other dealings with the restaurants, the local

authorities are to be regarded as the Ministry's agents?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): As indicated in the circular to which my hon. Friend refers, the assets in British Restaurant undertakings created at the expense of my Department remain the property of the Ministry. In the establishment of British Restaurants, local authorities are not agents of the Ministry; they act under "requirements" imposed by the Local Authorities (Community Kitchens and Sale of Food in Public Air Raid Shelters) Order, S.R. & O. No. 103 of 1941.

Mr. Etherton: Is it not a fact that the whole risk, both in regard, to capital expenditure and as to management, lies on the Government; and is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave one reply on 2nd February and he himself gave four different replies this year and towards the end of last year, and that none of them are consistent? Cannot the hon. Gentleman clarify the position by making a comprehensive statement?

Mr. Mabane: I should not have said that that was a correct interpretation of this reply.

Rodent Infestation (Houses)

Sir W. Davison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the heavy expenditure involved under the recent Rats (Infestation) Order, 1943, ordering local authorities throughout the country to employ a body of special inquiry agents to obtain information as to the presence of rats in all houses within their area and involving in Kensington an expenditure of £680 for the appointment of 12 such persons for a period of three months and similar expenditure throughout the country; what is the estimated total expenditure involved; and whether he will consider less expensive means, such as a questionnaire to householders, with the assistance of the local sanitary authorities?

Mr. Mabane: Under the Order referred to local authorities are required to report to the Ministry of Food first, cases of major infestation in their areas and secondly, the general condition of their areas as to rodent infestation. The method to be adopted in making the necessary


survey is that suggested by my hon. Friend. Owing, however, to the depleted staffs available, local authorities have been authorised to augment the sanitary officer's staff where necessary. No estimate can be given of the total expenditure as the cost depends on the amount of knowledge already possessed by the local authorities and their officers. Many authorities have reported already without incurring any special cost.

Sir W. Davison: In view of the fact that £680 is involved in one borough of Kensington must not the cost throughout the country be enormous, and does not my hon. Friend think that except possibly in the case of shops and bakeries a questionnaire sent to householders as to whether they have any rats in their premises would be equally effective and much cheaper? Surely householders would be only too glad to get rid of rats if they had any, and as to shops and bakeries would not the local sanitary authorities who have statutory powers and experience be the most suitable persons to adequately inspect the premises for rat-runs, etc.? Has the Minister nothing to say in reply?

Marketing System

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the progressive increase in the gap between production prices and retail selling prices for fruit, vegetables and other agricultural produce: whether he has considered proposals or plans for a complete revision of the existing marketing system; and what action he intends to take?

Mr. Mabane: I am not aware that the gap between producers' prices and retail prices for agricultural or horticultural produce is increasing. So far as prices are controlled by Order my Noble Friend's endeavour is to fix the lowest trade margins compatible with wide distribution and existing conditions. As regards the second part of the Question, my Noble Friend considers that the consumer's interests will be best served by retaining the existing marketing system. Any drastic change would almost certainly lead to a long period of maldistribution and consequent waste.

Mr. Walkden: Is my hon. Friend aware that housewives and consumers generally

feel very concerned about the price of commodities like tomatoes and apples, which has risen over 150 and even up to 200 per cent. as compared with pre-war prices, and will he relate that to the margins allowed to wholesalers and producers and re-examine the whole question in view of the House of Lords Debate of a few months ago?

Mr. Mabane: I have examined the margins, but it is not a matter of margins. The hon. Member must remember that growers' prices have increased, and surely this is a recrudescence of the old conflict between consumers in the towns, who want to buy cheaply, and the growers, who must have a price to enable them to produce at a profit.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of lettuces which in the country are sold by the grower for a halfpenny or a penny they are sold in the shops at 10d. or 1s.?

Mr. Mabane: I am quite in agreement that the price of lettuces at the present time is extraordinarily high, but a shower of rain might alter the whole supply position. Price control of lettuces might be worse than the present situation.

Mr. Walkden: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the prices of fresh salads are abominably high and have been for months past, and continue to be?

Mr. Mabane: It must be remembered that growers in the past have not always been able to do as well perhaps as they ought to have done.

Canned Fish (Maximum Prices) Order

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food as the Canned Fish (Maximum Prices) Order (S.R. and O., No. 962, of 1943) does not prevent persons from acquiring canned fish other than by buying, what steps he is taking to regulate transactions involving barter?

Mr. Mabane: Maximum Price Orders for Canned Fish have been in force for more than three years and my Noble Friend has no evidence that they have been evaded by "barter" transactions. If at any time he receives information in a contrary sense, he will give consideration to an amendment of the Order.

Sir H. Williams: As the question of barter does not arise, and as the Deputy Prime Minister said the other day that the only reason for inserting the word "acquiring" instead of "buying" was when an Order contemplated the possibility of barter, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the word is used unnecessarily?

Mr. Mabane: Certainly. This is a maximum price order and you cannot buy save at a price. Where the word "acquire" is used it is not in the case of maximum price orders.

Milk (Distribution)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in the interests of equity and milk consumption, he will recommend to the Milk Marketing Board the fixing of a flat rate of haulage for the transport of milk to markets; and what objection there is to the adoption of such a flat rate in view of the complete official control of sources of supply and distribution?

Mr. Mabane: The responsibility for supplying milk to the point of first delivery rests with producers, and the Milk Marketing Board negotiates haulage rates on their behalf. It is for the Board to decide in what way haulage costs shall be charged to individual producers.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Is there no supervision of these rail and transport charges?

Mr. Mabane: This is a matter, as I indicated in my answer, for the Milk Marketing Board, and the decision lies within their discretion. I understand they have examined this matter on one or two occasions in the past and have decided that action on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend would not be desirable.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the larger distributors of milk are receiving an additional margin of 1¼d. a gallon over and above that of the small distributor; and will he give consideration to making the margin uniform?

Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave on 2rst October, 1942, and 14th April, 1943, to

the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York).

Mr. Higgs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these replies were very unsatisfactory and did not give any explanation at all as to why the amount paid should increase as the amount distributed increased?

Mr. Mabane: I am sure my hon. Friend has read the answers. They are extremely long. I think they give a full explanation of the policy on which this particular practice is based.

Prosecutions

Mr. Quibell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is satisfied that where prosecutions are undertaken by his Department the Ministry is- adequately represented by counsel of equal calibre to those employed by the defendants in such cases?

Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend sympathises with the point of view of my hon. Friend and endeavours to arrange for the prosecution in all food cases to be conducted adequately. It would not, however, be desirable to make it a rule that counsel must be briefed for the prosecution whenever it is thought that counsel is likely to appear for the defence.

Mr. Quibell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in a recent case referred to in the Question senior counsel, a junior barrister and two solicitors were briefed for the defence, and the excuse of the prosecution as to why they could not get a counsel of equal status was because they were so busily engaged elsewhere?

Mr. Mabane: I think the hon. Member knows that that particular case is being carefully investigated at the moment.

Fish, Billingsgate (Allocations to Caterińg Establishments)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, on those occasions when large quantities of fish arrive at Billingsgate Market, he will consider allowing extra allocations to catering establishments and thus prevent the serious waste which occasionally happens as a result of the fish becoming unfit for human consumption?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir.

Shipments from Northern Ireland

Professor Savory: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that in 1942 Northern Ireland shipped to Great Britain 1,450,000 pounds of dried milk and 665,000 cases of eggs, each case containing 30 dozen eggs; and whether he will state the values of these shipments?

Mr. Mabane: I am aware of the quantities of eggs and of dried milk shipped from Northern Ireland to Great Britain in 1942. The records of my Department do not confirm the figures suggested by my hon. Friend. It is not, however, in the national interests to publish this kind of information in war-time.

Professor Savory: Why did the hon. Gentleman last week plead the national interest for not giving the figures which I have quoted, and which can be had for the asking by anyone who puts a question to the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mabane: I have indicated that the figures are inaccurate.

Professor Savory: I have the official statement here.

Mr. Mabane: So have I.

Oranges (Distribution)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will arrange for oranges to be distributed through maternity and child-welfare centres in order to make certain that they do in fact go to families where there are young children?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir. My Noble Friend is not of opinion that the suggestion of my hon. Friend, even if it were practicable, would be an improvement on existing arrangements.

Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction about this, and what steps does he take to ensure that the oranges reach the children for whom they are intended?

Mr. Mabane: We have made very careful inquiries on this point and have very full evidence that nearly all R.B.2 holders do obtain oranges when they are available. If the distribution was arranged in the way the hon. Member suggests there

would be more inconvenience and probably a great deal of wastage.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible to consider distributing some of these oranges to the schools?

Mr. Mabane: I think the hon. Member will realise how extraordinarily difficult it would be to arrange quite a different form of distribution for a highly perishable commodity.

Mr. E. Walkden: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that many shopkeepers keep oranges for five days, denying the children the right to the oranges, and then sell them to anybody on the sixth day?

Mr. Mabane: I think the hon. Member will agree that most retailers pursue a much more honest policy than that.

Herrings (Price)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the price for herring paid to the fishermen at Fraser-burgh, Buckle and Peterhead was recently reduced to 70s. per cran; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Mabane: I am aware that as a consequence of heavy landings of herring at the Moray Firth ports recently the price of herring on landing has fallen below the maximum price to producers, namely 91s. per cran. These seasonal fluctuations in the landing of herring and consequential price movements cannot be avoided and my Noble Friend sees no reason for taking any action in the matter at the present time.

Mr. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole of the Scottish herring fleet was tied up last week owing to the prices offered and that there was a complete breakdown of the scheme? Does he not think it a scandal that fishermen should be deprived of a livelihood when the whole country would like to get herrings if they could?

Mr. Mabane: The hon. Member must realise that 91s. is a maximum price. The Department has indicated that it was prepared to receive representations from the fishermen on this matter, but no representations have yet been received.

Mr. Boothby: 1 beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Grain Drying, Warwickshire

Sir John Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what engagements his Ministry have made for drying the grain of Warwickshire farmers who have purchased combined harvesters; and how will these engagements be carried out in 1943?

Mr. Mabane: All millable or potentially millable wheat will be accepted by flour millers and conditioned if necessary. My Department has aso undertaken to purchase all millable or potentially millable barley for which a market cannot otherwise be found and will make any arrangements necessary for conditioning barley so purchased. In both cases the grower must sell through an approved buyer and any grower who intends to use a combined harvester should at once notify the approved buyer to whom he normally sells so that the latter can apply if necessary to my Department for assistance in disposing of the grain.

Sir J. Mellor: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of farmers were refused permission to purchase drying plant on the grounds that the Stratford-on-Avon plant would be ready for this year's harvest? Does he accept full responsibility for drying this grain?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Higgs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Stratford-on-Avon plant will not be service before 1st September, and that the harvest will be gathered by that time?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Discarded Service Boots

Sir Granville Gibson: asked the Minister of Supply the total number of boots discarded by each of the three Fighting Services from the outbreak of war to 31st December, 1941, and the total sales to dealers made by each Service during that period; the total number discarded by each of the three Fighting Services from 1st January, 1942, to 30th June, 1943; the total quantity sold to dealers by each Service and the total number handed over by each Service to the Ministry during that period; and, of the boots handed over

by such Services to the Ministry, what percentages have been rebuilt, repaired, clogged, sold for fertiliser purposes, sold to dealers or destroyed, and what number remained to be dealt with on 30th June, 1943?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the
OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir G. Gibson: Has there been a change of policy in respect of the sale of discarded boots since January, 1942, up to which time they had been disposed of in this way? Is it the intention of the Ministry of Supply not to dispose of any further quantities to private individuals or firms?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, as I indicated, no discarded Service boots are now being sold to the trade.

Sir G. Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend intend not to dispose of any for sale in future?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, that is what I intend.

Following is the information:

Completely reliable information is not available in regard to the number of boots discarded by each of the three Fighting Services during the two periods mentioned. The total sales to dealers made by the Ministry of Supply during these two periods was 1,123,750 pairs and 232,700 pairs respectively. The total number of pairs of boots handed over by each Service to the Ministry during the latter of the two periods is approximately as follows:


Navy
…
…
40,000


Army
…
…
3,000,000


Air Force
…
…
717,000


Of the boots handed over during this period, 30 per cent. have been rebuilt, 13 per cent. have been repaired, none have been clogged, about ½ per cent. sold for fertiliser purposes, 6 per cent. sold to dealers and about 13 per cent. destroyed, after recovery of all usable parts. 1,339,000 pairs remained to be dealt with at 30th June, 1943, and approximately half of this number was in process of sorting and grading.

Paper (Jobbing and Miscellaneous Printing)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Supply (1) what percentage of the total quantity of paper used for printing is allocated to firms engaged in jobbing or miscellaneous printing, as distinct from the printing of books and periodicals;
(2) whether paper allocated for jobbing or miscellaneous printing may be used for book production?

Sir A. Duncan: Exact figures in this form arc not available, since total quantities of new paper are allocated for various uses, some of which may or may not involve printing. It is estimated, however, that rather less than half the deliveries for printing, apart from supplies for newspapers, are used for books and periodicals. Generally speaking, only paper licensed for book production may be used for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (TRADE UNION SITE OFFICERS)

Wing-Commander James: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will make a statement upon the status of certain trade union officials now operating upon sites of large contracts being executed under the direction of his Ministry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): In March, 1941, the four principal organisations representing employers and workmen in the building and civil engineering industry submitted proposals to the Government on the ways and means of securing improved output on essential works. Among other suggestions, they jointly proposed, with a view to securing smoother running of important jobs and quicker handling of difficulties, that a trade union officer should be appointed to the larger Government contracts, who would be employed whole time for the purpose of consulting with the site management on general labour questions. This proposal was adopted as a war-time measure. There are 52 trade union officers operating on about 400sites. The salary, as approved by the Treasury, is £6 15s 0s. Per week, with subsistence and daily travelling expenses as follow: If living at home—£1 0s. 0d. per week; if living away from home, £2 0s. 0d. per week. The functions

of these site officers are to deal as far as practicable with any actual or possible causes of labour difficulties, and with such things as travelling, canteen and other welfare arrangements.

Wing-Commander James: In what respects does the function of these officers differ from the ordinary trade union practice accepted by the industry?

Mr. Hicks: Ordinarily there is not a site representative, appointed by the trade union, devoting his whole time to the one site or group of sites but, on account of the size of the jobs and the various difficulties arising, the four principal organisations urged upon the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Labour the desirability of adopting such a course, and their suggestion was accepted.

Wing-Commander James: In view of the fact that this is an entirely new thing in industry, I beg to give notice that, in order to allow of further discussion upon it, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Hicks: I told my hon. Friend that—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Viant: Is it not the case—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member said that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and that prevents any further questons being asked about it now.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVILIAN PROPERTY (EMERGENCY PAINT)

Sir John Power: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he has any statement to make on the question of making available to private purchasers a limited quantity of emergency paint which could be used as a temporary measure to prevent the deterioration of civilian property?

Mr. Hicks: It is hoped to make 500,000 gallons of oil paint available for delivery over a period of about three months from the middle of August. Owing to raw material difficulties it will be made in one shade only, namely, dark brown, and it is intended that it should be used primarily for patch painting to prevent deterioration. The paint, which is being


manufactured to a British Standards Institution specification, will be on sale in pint and quart tins at 1s. 9d. and 3s. 6d. per tin respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL REPORT, HOUSE OF COMMONS

Sir Francis Fremantle: What action do you propose to take, Mr. Speaker, on the Special Report of the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports recommending that the word "Hansard" be printed on the front of the Parliamentary Debates Official Report?

Mr. Speaker: I propose that when the new Session of Parliament starts and the new series of OFFICIAL REPORTS begins, the word "Hansard" should be printed below the words "Official Report" If in the meantime there are any objections, hon. Members, of course, will have time to let me know.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I would like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, a question about the order of Business to-day. Can you inform us, for the guidance of the House, of the order in which the Debate on pensions will be taken?

Mr. Speaker: I really have had no official notice of this question. I do not know what has been arranged. I understand that some hon. Members wish to shorten the discussion on the Regulations and to proceed on the Adjournment to discuss a rather wider issue. I have no objection, of course, if that is the wish of the House. But if must be remembered that on the Adjournment there are certain limitations. Anything requiring legislation and the general question of old age pensions would not be in Order.

Mr. Greenwood: I quite realise that on the Adjournment questions of legislation could not be raised, but would it be your Ruling that the Debate might range over the widest possible field, affecting pensions of all grades, including supplementation?

Mr. Speaker: As long as it is in Order on the Adjournment, I am quite prepared to agree to it.

Mr. A. Bevan: You will see, Sir, that before the House there are suggested

Draft Regulations and a Memorandum. As one is an explanation of the other, would you allow the two to be taken together in the first Debate?

Mr. Speaker: I suppose it would be for the general convenience of the House that both should be taken together.

Mr. Bevan: If the Draft Regulations and the Memorandum are to be taken together, would it be in Order to have a fairly wide discussion on the two? Would it be in Order to suggest that there are certain things not in the Regulations which should be there, and which are obliquely referred to in the Memorandum? For example, in the Memorandum it is suggested that the Assistance Board are going to bring forward a consolidated Regulation. Would it be in Order to suggest that it would be undesirable to bring forward a consolidated Regulation at this moment, when there are certain increases which ought to be made, in order to make that consolidation somewhat permanent?

Mr. Speaker: This Memorandum is there for our information. I have two Motions on the subject. Broadly speaking, the Memorandum, being there for the information of Members only, it is there as a help to the Debate.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As the Draft Regulations propose to amend the old Regulations, will it be permissible to raise matters not brought within the scope of the amendment in so far as the original Regulations are being amended?

Mr. Speaker: Only within limits. Our general rule is that you cannot go back to discuss the original Regulations, but only changes which are being made in them.

Mr. Edwards: Surely we are entitled to discuss the form of alterations that are proposed in these draft Regulations and the use of them?

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the alterations, yes, certainly, we can Debate them.

Mr. Edwards: And the use of them?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member had better not ask me for too definite a Ruling. Let us see how the Debate goes on.

Sir I. Albery: If the House goes on to the Adjournment at an early hour, Mr. Speaker, what subject is it intended to discuss?

Mr. Speaker: The same subject, but rather wider.

Mr. Tinker: May I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if there is a desire to carry on the Debate longer than the stipulated time, he will consider suspending the Rule so as to give a longer time, as there are many hon. Members on this side who are interested and want to speak?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend has rather taken me by surprise. I have had no notice of this. I thought at the time that this arrangement for the Debate would suffice, and I think it should, if we fall in with the arrangement which has been suggested, which seems to be the best way of making use of the Adjournment.

Mr. Tinker: I understand that the Adjournment will finish at the usual time under the Standing Order, and we might want more time, and if the Debate is likely to go on, would the right hon. Gentleman extend the time?

Mr. Eden: I have had absolutely no notice of this. No one gave me any indication that there is a wide desire to sit, and I rather hope the House will not want to sit late.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is very probable that the Debate on the Regulations will go the stipulated length of time, and it is possible that the Adjournment may not come.

Mr. Eden: One cannot tell that until one gets there.

PRIVILEGE

Report from the Committee of Privileges, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 103].

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Tenth and Eleventh Reports from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [Nos. 104 and 105].

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn until the first Sitting Day after 19th September.
The House was informed on 28th July, last that these provisional dates had been put forward. The House is aware that the provision already exists for the House to be recalled if an earlier meeting is required in the public interest. This power has been exercised on several occasions before, and I cannot give an undertaking it may not have to be exercised again.

Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move,
That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under the Unemployment Act, 1934, as applied by the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 29th July, be approved.
There are two Motions on the Order Paper, this one dealing with supplementary pensions and the other with unemployment assistance:
That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, made under sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to the House on 29th July, be approved.
In recent Debates it has been the usual thing to take them together and for me to move them consecutively at the end, and I hope that this course will be appropriate to-day. The Supplementary Pensions Draft Regulations deal with certain matters which are strictly consequential on the passing by Parliament of the recent Pensions and Determination of Needs Act; they make no fundamental changes in the general character of the Board's Regulations.
About two of the Regulations there is very little I need say, as they do no more than carry out certain express provisions of the Act itself. Regulation III makes certain alterations in the manner in which money and investments treated as capital

assets are to be dealt with for the purpose of assessing supplementary pensions. It is strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act. As hon. Members will remember, that Section—which was fully debated in the course of the Bill through Parliament—altered the amount of capital which, apart from war savings, a supplementary pensioner might have without being regarded as disqualified for a supplementary pension from £300 to £400. It also reduced from 1s. to 6d. the weekly income to which each £25 after the first of any capital he may possess within this limit is to be treated as equivalent. I need not say more than that this Regulation carries these provisions into the Supplementary Pensions Code as from the appointed day. Regulation IV similarly carries into the Supplementary Pensions Code the change in the amount to be disregarded out of any superannuation payment to which an applicant or any of his dependants may be entitled which was made by Section 1 (2) of the Act. Members will remember that this change was to increase the amount to be disregarded from 7s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. a week, subject to a proviso that, where there are several such payments in any case, they are to be aggregated and 10s. 6d. disregarded out of the aggregate amount. This provision will also come into force on the appointed day.
The only remaining Regulation which calls for special comment is Regulation II. This Regulation indicates how supplementary pensions payable to the new class of widows with young children who are brought within the scope of the supplementary pensions scheme by the Act are to be assessed. It has necessarily been made in the form of an addition or amendment to the existing Regulations and is therefore not, perhaps, as easy to follow as it might be. The effect of it is, however, clear enough. It is to increase, by 3s. in the case of a widow with one child and by an extra shilling for every child after the first, the amount which the application of the existing supplementary pensions scales would provide for such a case. The reason why this provision had to be made is explained in the White Paper. The general code of the Board's Regulations had necessarily to be prepared by reference to the needs of what I may call the normal kind of household, namely, the


household which, whether it had children or not, had at least two adults. In the past, pension cases where there were only one adult and several children were rare, if only because it is not usual for pensioners to be found with young children dependent on them. Where they did arise, they were regarded as unusual cases calling for the exercise of discretion. But with the addition of the new class of widows it will be the common one in future so far as the widow with young children is concerned, and it was therefore necessary to make proper provision for them in the Regulations.
In considering the effect of these proposals, the House will appreciate that the amount of the supplementary pension which will be payable in a particular case will depend on such matters as the rent the widow is paying, the number and ages of her children and whether the widow has any resources of her own besides her widow's pension and children's allowance. I have, however, drawn up some illustrations in order that the House may be clear as to what this means by way of addition to the present allowances. These illustrations will be of the amount up to which the widow's pension and the children's allowances will be made by the Board in a few typical cases, on the assumption that she has no other resources. If we take the case of a widow paying a rent of 6s., with one child under five years of age, under the existing scale of rates she would get 28s., and, under the Regulation to which we are asking the House to agree to-day, 31s. A widow similarly circumstanced but paying not 6s. but 10s. a week rent at present would get 32s. and under these Regulations 35s. Take a widow with two children, aged 7 and 11 years—under the existing supplementary pension scale rates she would get 33s. and under the new arrangement 37s., if the rent was 6s.; but if the rent was 10s., whereas she would on the present basis get 37s., she will now get 41s.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Would the Minister explain how the scale rate is made up? What are the constituent elements of the rate for which he is providing?

Mr. Brown: That takes us straight back to the original Regulations. This is the position at the moment. In the case, for

example, of a widow with one child of five, paying a rent of 6s., the amount will be made up as follows: The basic rate will be 15s. plus 4s. for the widow and child respectively, cost of living addition 5s. 9d., further addition provided by the present Regulations 3s. extra—that is to say, 5s. instead of the existing 2s. pensioner's addition—and there would be a rent adjustment of is. 3d., making in all 19s. plus 5s. 9d., plus 5s. plus 1s. 3d. which I believe is 31s. In the case of a widow with two children aged seven and eleven and paying a rent of 10s. the amount would be 41s., and so on.
The examples which I have given are instances of cases in which the widow is living on her own and paying a rent for the accommodation she occupies. Cases will no doubt arise where the widow is living as a member of somebody else's household. They may not be numerous, but they will call for different treatment. In the first place the amount which will be allowed to them for rent will be a proportion of the total rent which the person with whom they are living is paying for the house, subject only to a maximum in this type of case of 7s. a week. Thus in the second illustration I quoted, that of the widow with two children, if they were living with her father and mother and the latter were paying 14s. a week rent, the widow's proportion would be 7s., and so on. That illustrates how it works out in that type of case. Apart from any differences which may arise out of this different treatment of rent, the amount of the supplementary pension payable in this type of case will never vary by more than a shilling or so from the amount payable to the widow who is living alone.
In making special provision in the Regulations for widows with children, the Assistance Board is following a practice which is very common throughout public assistance authorities. They have always recognised that, as a class, this type of case presents difficulties requiring special considerations. So far as any widow actually taken over at the appointed day from the public assistance authority is concerned the House will remember that under a special provision in the Act she will receive at least as much from the Board as she was receiving from the local authority, and in many cases more. I have referred to the fact that the supplementary pension payable by the Board de-


pends on, among other things, the amount of rent which the widow is paying. The Board has always recognised that this question of rent may be specially difficult in the case of widows suddenly left with young children dependent upon them.
I referred earlier to the appointed day. One of the objects of these Regulations is to fix the day as from which the provisions of the Pensions and Determination of Needs Act, 1943, so far as they relate to supplementary pensions, shall take effect. This is the day on which the Regulations which we are now considering come into force. If the House approves of the Regulations to-day, the intention is that they should come into force on the first pension pay day following 30th August next. That will be the Tuesday following 30th August. In other words, the new class of widows will be entitled to receive supplementary pensions as from that day, and as from that day, too, new applicants for supplementary pensions will have their cases assessed on the basis of the new provisions regarding capital and superannuation. So far as existing cases are concerned, every effort is being made to ensure that they are assessed as quickly as possible, and we hope to complete the work well within the period of three months allowed by the Act. We cannot of course give a pledge, but it is hoped, I understand from the Board, to complete the work by the end of September. It is of course a general complaint, with which I personally have a good deal of sympathy, because it has been part of my task many times to expound these Regulations, that they are complicated and that they ought to be put into another form. But since I understand that is likely to be raised later on, I will not pursue the point now.

Mr. Daggar: More Regulations! You, Mr. Speaker, must be tired, if not sick of the sound of this word "Regulations." It has become almost as repellent to Members of this House as the words "co-ordination" and "planning" Revolution by Regulation. I think a fitting motto to be placed over the door of this Chamber would be "Attempts made here to redress grievances by Regulation." But I must be cautious, and I hasten to say that this is the first time that Regulations have been made applicable in the case of widows. Since 1925, a period of 18

years, no attempt has been made to deal with the sorry conditions under which some widows are living at the present time. I suppose it may be and probably will be argued that even in this sphere of legislative improvement or reform by Regulation, the law of compensation operates, namely, that it has its advantages as well as its disadvantages. Nevertheless, it is notable that while we hear so much in this House about the disadvantages accompanying legislation by reference, yet we are prepared to accept as inevitable this other form of legislation by reference to Regulations. If there is a disposition to accept it as a substitute, in my submission it is a very poor one. It may be all right for Ministers. It may be convenient for solicitors and in some instances for politicians, but it is in my opinion very tiresome for the old age pensioners, and will prove irksome for the widow and as additional Regulations are introduced the difficulties must inevitably increase and the position become worse. Here is an example of what I mean. I crave the indulgence of the House to read a paragraph from the existing Regulations:
Whereas in pursuance of Section 38 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, as that Section was applied, with respect to the functions of the Assistance Board by Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') the Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1940"—
Then, in parenthesis we find the letter "a," which obviously means that one must refer to the bottom of the page. There we are treated to these hieroglyphics:
S.R. &amp; O. 1940, No. 946.
The next paragraph begins with the words:
And whereas the Principal Regulations were duly amended by the Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1941—
Here in parenthesis we find the letter "b", and when we again refer to the bottom of the page we find
S.R. &amp; O. 1941, No. 663.
It ends by saying:
—"hereinafter together referred to as 'the Amending Regulations'.
There are several such paragraphs. I am very pleased to note that we are assured in the White Paper that the Board are now


engaged on not only the codification but the simplification of the whole body of these Regulations. I suppose this is an instance where even little minds think alike, because I intended to stress the need for simplifying the Regulations when this Debate was announced. May I say that I wish the Board every success, in the much needed reform? I hope it will prove to be an example to the Government. To expect those to whom these Regulations apply to understand such legal jargon is not only silly but unnecessary. I contend that two things are required to make them plain, not only to widows, but to old age pensioneers generally: First, that the conditions under which supplementary pensions are payable should be set forth in clear, distinct language, and, second, the amount of the supplementary pension payable should be stated. If this form of presentation cannot be changed, would the Minister issue a circular in simple language explaining these two points, together with a few examples, some of which he has given us to-day, showing the method by which each necessary calculation in the determination of the pension is arrived at? Is it possible to have that done before the Board issues its new simplified codified Regulations?
In doing so, I know the Minister will not unduly emphasise the fiddling way in which Governments here, and especially this one, have dealt with this question of widows' and old age pensions. It has been one long process of patch, patch, patch. It may have been appropriate for Mussolini to have fiddled during the burning of Rome, but there is no reasonable excuse for our following his reprehensible example. While contradictions are the monopoly of politicians, I must be careful about using such a description in this connection, because for 18 years nothing has been done for widows. Now, at long last, after many appeals in this House and the pledge given by the Ministry more than 12 months ago, something has been done. Even in this House we show indications of life, because we move. But at what a rate! If it be true that speed kills, then this Government will live a very long time. It is gratifying to know that the money is at last to be found to give these widows a measure of relief. When the demand was originally made—and it is also true in respect of old age pensioners—we were accused by hon. Members oppo-

site that we failed to give sufficient consideration to the means for providing the money. I want to be frank with the House and say that that always leaves me cold. It has no effect on me, because I have heard it so many times. Familiarity has bred contempt. This excuse was made long before this war started. The late Mr. Neville Chamberlain repeatedly sang the same song; the Chancellor has chanted it upon every appropriate occasion. In fact it has now come to be described as the "cashier's objection." It is only since we have been compelled to spend £15,000,000 a day on the war, to run up a total cost of £13,000,000,000 and a National Debt of £16,000,000,000 that anything has been done for these people.
But that is not the whole story. The Chancellor, introducing his Vote of Credit, told the House on the seventh of last month that the Budget expenditure this year will be over eight times what it was 10 years ago and that our total expenditure since the war began is already double what it was during the whole of the last war. He also said that the amount to be raised in taxation this year is over three times the amount which was raised in 1938, half as much again as the total amount raised in taxes during the last war, and that we have borrowed a sum more than the whole of the National Debt before the war commenced. After that disadvantageous change in the financial condition of this country it is now found possible to improve the conditions of widows. Such a contradiction between criticism and performance is not only indefensible, but it tends to lower the prestige of Parliament and support the view that politics is a dirty game and that those who play it are either fools or hypocrites, or both. If it be contended that all it is proposed to achieve by the Regulations is to transfer the maintenance of widows and their children from the local authorities to the Assistance Board, that is, a charge upon the taxes instead of the rates, which, after all, is true in the last analysis, my reply is that action ought not to have taken 18 years to achieve so little. Moreover, as these widows will now be entitled to supplementary pensions and as many of their children have reached the age of 14 years and upwards, while they themselves have attained the ages of 45, 50 and 60 and are still continuing to receive such pension, then the case for including widows without


children is partly made out. I know that that presents difficulties, but they can be resolved along the lines of the Beveridge plan.
I understand that the new Regulations will cover about 25,000 widows and their children. If this figure be reliable, then to deal with the remaining comparatively few is not a problem that needs long to find a solution. Just as old age pensioners and the widows who are now under discussion will not be a charge on the rates, neither should the few remaining widows who are not included in the Regulations. As is becoming the practice with the Government, no one expected them to make a clean job of this question, because in tinkering with any issue anomalies are bound to exist. You remove one and inevitably create another, and this is true in respect of widows and their children. It is also true of the Regulations generally. If I understand these Regulations correctly, the widow of an insured man, where the necessary insurance conditions have been satisfied, is eligible for a pensions of 10s. a week plus 5s. for the first child and 3s. for each other child under the school-leaving age.
I assume that under these Regulations a widow with three children whose ages are from 11 to 14 will receive 7s. 3d., if she has another child between 8 and 11 she will be entitled to 6s. 9d., and in the case of a child between 5 and 8 she will be entitled to 6s. 3d., making a total of 20s. 3d. It is strange that the Regulations make provision for the payment of 20s. 3d. in the case of a widow with three children while last month the Government decided to pay to the children of soldiers' widows, regardless of age, 9s. 6d. for the first child, 8s. 6d. for the second and 7s. 6d. for each successive child, making a total of 25s. 6d. It is going to be difficult for the Government to explain why a widow in precisely the same circumstances will be no less than 5s. 3d. a week worse off than a widow similarly situated under the arrangements agreed to by the Government last month.
Even worse examples could be given if the widows' position was considered. Strange things are committed in the name of Regulation by reference. It covers more sins than charity, hides more inequalities than life and buries more mistakes than

death itself. I imagine that this method was in the mind of the Foreign Secretary when, addressing the annual conference of the Conservative Party in May, he said:
This process of gradual beneficent evolution has continued throughout our history.
For once we can look upon him as not only a successful politician, but also as a reliable prophet.
I am aware of the provision made for raising the limit of capital savings from £300 to £400, and I do not belittle the advantage to people who happen to have that amount of money. I am also aware of the reduction of the assumed income of 1s. to 6d. on each completed £25 after the first, the raising of the disregarded superannuation payment of 7s. 6d. to 10s. 6d., and also the abolition of the household means test in the case of applicants for public assistance, all of which are concessions of varying value and importance. But most of us on this side are concerned with those widows who have no capital savings, and many are disappointed that no provision is made for an increase in the scale rates which would render it unnecessary to continue either the winter allowances or the distribution of blankets. The latter arrangement required a form of inquiry, to which I object. Opposition was expressed to some of the Clauses of the Catering Wages Bill because it involved inspectors visiting business premises. Yet we are seeking to perpetuate that practice, which involves inspectors visiting the homes of our people. In my opinion inquisition is much worse than inspection, and, if financial interests are to be protected, we must insist upon the protection and preservation of the privacy of the lives of widows and old age pensioners.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member seemed to find fault with the Government's arrangement in regard to blankets and seemed to want money instead of blankets. Is it not a fact that, if the old people had the money, they would not have been able to buy the blankets, because the Government were in possession of very limited stocks?

Mr. Daggar: It is true that the Government decided to distribute blankets, but they did it so many at a time when they must have known that the old people who


had been short for so many years were not in possession of the necessary coupons to buy all the blankets that were required. But that is no excuse for the Government's decision to distribute blankets instead of money. The winter allowances and the blankets are definite evidence that the amount of money paid to these people is insufficient. It they had plenty of money, there would be no need to distribute blankets. I feel obliged to remind the House that the Act in pursuance of which these Regulations are issued was the result of a pledge given more than 12 months ago, which also mentioned the position of spinsters, which we did not raise, and that of old age pensioners. The old age pensioners are in the same position to-day as they were in 1940, although two sets of Regulations have passed the House with the object of effecting necessary improvements in their condition. I can prove my point that old age pensioners are in precisely the same position financially as in 1940 by reference to two items, the smoking of tobacco and the consumption of beer. New Regulations introduced in July, 1942, provided for an increase in the scale of pensions for those living alone of 2s. 6d. a week, raising the amount from 19s. 6d. to 22s. In the case of two pensioners living together, husband and wife, one of whom is the householder, an increase of 5s. per week—from 33s. to 37s—and also an improvement in the winter allowances. I pointed out at the time that the Budget had already affected very adversely the living costs of old age pensioners. I took those two commodities, tobacco and beer—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is raising the general question of old age pensioners as a whole. He must confine himself to the Regulations.

Mr. Ness Edwards: What my hon. Friend is discussing is the adequacy of the supplementary pensions rate laid down in these Regulations. Surely he is entitled to discuss how the supplementary pension is to be spent and whether or not it covers the necessities of the people covered by the Regulation.

Mr. James Griffiths: It is true that we are discussing these new Regulations, but they are only amendments of the old Regulations, and unless we are at liberty to discuss the whole of the scale, I do not think hon. Members

will be able to put the points they want to put.

Mr. Buchanan: The Regulations that we are dealing with were explained in a White Paper which says that a certain sum shall be added to the existing scale. That means that we cannot discuss these amounts without discussing the old scales. My hon. Friend is arguing that the existing scales are too low and that any addition to them keeps them at too low a figure. This is a terribly difficult technical problem and only those who have studied it for a long period of years could follow it. There will be great difficulty in narrowing down discussion and I submit that it will be much better for it to be taken on the widest possible lines.

Mr. Tinker: I am glad that you, Sir, have intervened as we want to know the position. There is to be an increase on the original scales and we want to put forward reasons why that increase should be substantial so as to meet existing conditions. That is not dealing with the fundamental increase over the basic rate but only with supplementary allowance. We shall be thankful for your guidance because we are wondering how we shall be able to put our point of view.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He has stated that this is a difficult technical problem, and I agree. It is obvious that under these Regulations we cannot discuss the whole of the old age pensions question. That is brought within certain limits, and codification, after all, means merely a redrafting question and does not mean an unlimited discussion. The Debate is technically on an increase in the supplementary pension, but I am not disposed to restrict it unduly.

Mr. Daggar: The point that I wanted to stress was that when the first Regulations were introduced provision was made for improving the conditions of the old age pensioners. The calculation was made upon the assumption that the old age pensioner smokes four ounces of tobacco a week and drinks six pints of beer. The first Budget imposed an additional tax of 3s. 6d. a week. That 3s. 6d. with the increase under the Regulation of 5s. leaves him only 1s. 6d, better off. Under the last Budget the taxation of those two articles amounted to another 2s. a week,


so that the two Budgets imposed a tax of 5s. 6d. a week on the basis that I have used.
If that be true, and it cannot be controverted, these people are 6d. per week worse off than in 1942, when the first Regulations were introduced. All this means that the aged people are in precisely the same position as they were in in 1940, when the Old Age and Widows Pensions Act first provided the payment of supplementary allowances. Even if we take the cost of living as a whole and exclude the imposition of the taxes on these two articles, we find that when that Act was passed there was a difference of no fewer than 15 points in the cost of living then and the cost of living to-day. In spite of these facts, the Chancellor calmly observed during the Debate on the last Budget, on 21st April:
I do not think one need feel anxiety in relation to the position of old age pensioners."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 21st April, 1943; col. 1750, Vol. 388.]
Some of us are very anxious about their conditions when you introduce Regulations providing for an increase of 5s. a week and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in two Budgets imposes taxation amounting to 6d. in excess of the 5s. provided for in the Regulations.
Let me again ask when it is proposed to introduce Regulations dealing with the position of these aged people. For how long is it proposed to use the Beveridge Report as an excuse for doing nothing with this subject? I ask the second question, because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made this statement at a meeting held on 7th March this year, which was before the Chancellor by increased taxation lowered the standard of these people. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in his division, said that there were two examples with which he wanted to deal. The Beveridge Report, he said, was a fine and stimulating document, although neither the Government nor he accepted all the proposals. The two examples were workmen's compensation and old age pensions. The former, he said, would mean that heavy levies would have to be paid in the mining and railway industries simply because these were more hazardous than the average, and the Government did not accept the view that we must establish a certain level of old age pensions

and take 20 years to reach it. The Government had decided, he said, that it would be better to make an earlier increase than the report recommended and, having made that increase, to stabilise the pension. Old people cannot go on strike to enforce their demands, but through their organisations throughout the country, by demonstrations and attempts to educate the public, they were largely, if not entirely, responsible for the 10 days' Debate that took place in this House when the original Bill providing for the payment of supplementary pensions was introduced. They ought not to be asked again to take part in a similar agitation. I am asking the Government to make that unnecessary, not only by reinstating these people to the position they occupied in 1940, but by making a substantial improvement in their conditions, not in years to come, but now in 1943.

Mr. Tinker: One feels a difficulty in knowing how to deal with this question in order to put one's point of view. I have no objection to the first paragraph in the White Paper dealing with supplementary pensions which have been granted. The White Paper says that payments will start after 30th August. Why should they wait so long? The Regulations will pass this House to-day and the House of Lords to-morrow, and they will be in force from that date. Will the Minister, therefore, make the date a fortnight earlier? There is another point about which I am disappointed. I would have liked the Minister to outline, as he did with the widow's supplementary pension, exactly what rates of supplementary pensions are to be paid. There is much confusion about what the total amount is after rent deductions. Had he done that it would have been a guidance to the House in this Debate, because it is on the basis of the actual amount of the supplementary allowances that we want to talk to-day. We understand from the memorandum that the Assistance Board is examining this question. Therefore, the House will be asked to give their guidance on what they think is the amount necessary for people to live on. I wish to devote my attention to showing that the present allowances for supplementary pensions are not adequate, and I want some guidance to go from the House as to what we think the Assistance Board ought to have in mind when codifying the


present allowances. I understand that for a man and wife, after the rent is paid, the supplementary pension, along with old age pension, is about 32s. in the summer and 34s. 6d. in winter. I am not clear what is the actual amount and I would like the Minister to tell us. If I am right in my assumption that the total amount now allowed for supplementary pension is only equal to the figure I have stated, the House cannot say that it is doing justice to our aged people. If we are to give a lead to the Assistance Board, who after all are the servants of this House, they must know what is in our minds as to a reasonable amount to provide for old age pensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance. I claim that when there are two people living together nothing less than £1 a week clear each can be adequate to give them a decent standard of life. No one will dispute that. No hon. Member could keep two aged people on less than £2 a week. The same amount should be paid to the single person, apart from the rent.
If the House really feels in that direction it ought to say that it is desirous of stopping all the bickering that we have every time this question comes before us. Until we are satisfied that our aged people have sufficient to live on there can be no rest for anyone in the House. We shall press it on all occasions. I hope hon. Members on the other side will speak, because their attitude will influence the Government, and if they believe that my basis is reasonable I hope they will stand by it. I have always set out for a basic increase, but have not succeeded. By the method I am adopting now of raising supplementary pensions to a fair height I shall bring behind me a large number of pensioners who are getting 18s. a week and cannot get anything more because they are above the scale rate laid down by the Assistance Board. If I can get supplementary pensions increased to £1, I shall bring along a large number of people who are now just below that figure and they will be able to claim something more. There is no doubt that there are hundreds of thousands who are just outside the supplementary assistance, and if they could make a further claim we could relieve a large amount of necessity. The House ought to insist now, not by resolution, but by expressing its opinion, that the present supplementary pension is not ade-

quate and that it ought to be lifted to a decent standard such as I have outlined, and that the Assistance Board can have some guidance from Parliament as to what they ought to do when codifying and amending the Regulations.

Mr. Buchanan: I am very doubtful about the extent to which I can marshal arguments that wall keep within the confines of the Debate. I am not quite certain how far your Ruling, Sir, allows us to dovetail both a criticism of the Regulations and a plea for the better treatment of old age pensioners. So far as I may stray I shall, of course, be subject to your Ruling. I am rather sorry, although I make no criticism about it, that the Minister has left and has not waited until the end of the Debate on these Regulations. I want to make this serious criticism of them. As they are now issued they are hopeless for a Member of Parliament to understand, particularly with regard to the language used when they deal with the widow. The other questions about capital expenditure, etc., do not affect anything like the same number of people. What is the language used not merely in the Regulations, but in the White Paper? It says that the existing method used by the Assistance Board of granting discretion shall not be used in that way in future but shall become a statutory duty, adding 3s. to the existing scales for each widow plus 1s. for every child after the first. But who knows what the existing scales are? I would ask any hon. Member to read the Regulations, even read the White Paper sent out to explain them, and then say what a widow will get. It is 3s. added to what? This morning I met a most capable Member of this House, no fool, and a man who takes some interest in this issue, and he thought 3s. was to be added to the 1s. old age pension. What it means is that it is 3s. added to what is now paid; but what is now paid? I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to tell me. There is nobody in the House who can do it. The only people who might do it are sitting under the Gallery, and even they cannot do it in some cases, because it is subject to so many "ifs" and so many "goes" and "comes"
One of the things which the Conservatives taught me in my early days in this House, when Income Tax was one of the


great issues, was that everybody was entitled to have his rights stated in clear and simple language. What is more elementary than the right of a widow to know the amount she is to get? She knows that her basic pension is 10s. for herself, 5s. for the first child, and 3s. for each succeeding child, but in the. supplementary pensions there are these references to 3s. plus Is. and she does not know. An applicant ought to be in a position to know what is due to her, so that she can at any time challenge it. One of the complications in dealing with soldiers' allowances arises from the fact that the sum to be received changes with the applicant's circumstances, even though the position is stated there much more clearly. A widow who is to draw a certain sum each week is entitled to know clearly to what she is entitled, so that if necessary she can challenge the amount which is paid to her.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am sure the hon. Member appreciates that the amount depends upon certain factors—the rent and the number of children. If he will tell the House what rent he assumes to be paid by the widow and the number of children and their ages, we might be able to say.

Mr. Buchanan: Why cannot it be stated clearly in the White Paper that a widow with, say, two children and paying a rent of 6s. a week is to receive a certain sum, and a widow paying a shilling or two more a week is to have her allowance increased to a certain sum? I have written out the existing scales here without the children and I do not know why that could not have been done in the White Paper—set out the scales for rents of 6s., 7s., 8s., 9s. or 10s.—and then take the rent at 6s, and say what a widow paying that rent and with two childden is entitled to.

Mr. Hutchinson: The rent factor may vary according to the locality.

Mr. Buchanan: The rent factor does not vary according to the widow. It is only different in different parts of the country. If ever there was terrible confusion, it is to be seen in these cases. I listened to the Minister to-day. He read something about 5s. 9d. plus 10s. plus something else, and it added up to 3rs. 9d. I do not

want to be unfair even to the Minister of Health, although the temptation to be unfair to him is great, but he appeared to me to be speaking almost like a gramophone record. Somebody had handed him a set of figures—5s. 9d. plus 10s. plus other additions, and they added up to 31s. 9d. But every 5s. 9d. represented a human being, men, women or children, and yet the Minister was reading it off almost like a gramophone record, as if he had no human flesh or bones at all. It was shocking and wrong. The approach to it is wrong. One of the difficulties with the Assistance Board Regulations is that they have got into such a state that I doubt very much whether the officials themselves can interpret them. In their offices you see almost stacks of memoranda dealing with the problem of what is to be paid. So far as it goes, I welcome the promise to codify and simplify them somewhat.
With regard to the widows again, I understand, and I think I am right, that all widows' rights in regard to certain matters are now safeguarded, but I want to put one point to the Minister. Under the Old Age Pensions Act we passed a Section which safeguarded the old age pensioner who may have been chargeable to a local authority which had been more generous than the Regulations would be. I ask whether the widow now chargeable to a local authority is safeguarded in the same way. I think she is, but I ask the Minister because I should like to have it put on record. Another point is that the practice is growing up among local authorities, and it is a good practice, of feeding children, particularly those attending schools, and some, in addition to feeding the children, also clothe them. I ask whether in the drawing up of these scales anything will be done to reduce the standard of life of these children because a local authority happens to feed and clothe them? I hope it will not be taken into account. There was a tendency some time ago to say that to feed the child costs 3s. a week and to set off that 3s. against the family income.
When we passed the original Act some Members opposite were very much worried. The hon. Member who used to sit for Doncaster but has now gone to The High Peak Division (Mr. Molson) was very worried lest we took over a certain class of widows and kept them on


perpetually. I want to ask the Minister whether something is not to be done to deal with the following type of widow. The Act says that the moment a widow ceases to be eligible for a determination of needs she must pass out, that is to say, if her children have died or at 16 have gone to work she passes out because there is then no need for a determination. I want to raise the case of a widow who becomes ill and has to go into hospital. On account of that her children may have to be temporarily taken away, and no longer is she in receipt of needs determination. I ask whether the Board will take steps to see that in the case of her illness and her removal to hospital she will not lose her needs determination.
So far, in arguing these cases, I have kept narrowly within the bounds of Order, but I am tempted to raise the general issue of the allowances paid to old people. It is nearly 18 months since the issue was raised in the House and I still remember the angy scene. We had Front Bench opposed to Front Bench and I remember appearing in the role I usually take, being a peace-loving man, of trying to make peace between the contending parties. Some people say to me they deplore scenes, but I would sooner have a House of Commons with those scenes, showing the feeling there is behind them, than have the apathetic House we have to-day. There is nothing wrong with scenes. Scenes usually mean that men feel deeply about issues. It is apathy that is the killing thing. People say of the Prime Minister that he is at times indiscreet, but I would sooner have him indiscreet but with courage and tenacity than that there should be the apathy which we see around us at times. But I remember this scene, and what was the answer we got from the Minister? That within a certain period of time the Regulations or the law would be so amended as to deal with the widows and with certain other aspects of the matter. We were to have new Regulations about them. That was over 18 months ago. After some time we got a Bill dealing with capital resources. All that we have got to-day is a temporary Measure. The Government are not yet in a position to tell us what they are going to do about the old people. What have they been doing 'all the time since? They are going to come along after some date in September and codify the position, telling us exactly what is to be done. The

Government can easily say in September that they are not in a position to keep that promise, because of war difficulties. We have no guarantee.
One of the complaints I have to make in regard to the White Paper is that no permanent hope is held out of the old age position being finally dealt with, although it is now serious. I welcome the step of taking the widow away from the Poor Law and under the care of the Government. The great bulk of these people would prefer to draw their money in some way unconnected with the Poor Law; but that change is little unless it means something decent by way of income to the widow. The present change means little more than a bookkeeping entry. The Government have wasted time indefensibly in toying with this Measure. Perhaps if I had come to the House and made myself an almost impossible nuisance, the problem might have been dealt with much better before now.
There is a difference in treatment between the widow whose husband was killed on war service and the widow whose husband was killed in civil life, but the difference should become narrower. There have been cases in my division of men killed in street accidents during the blackout. It has never been possible to get anything from the drivers of the vehicles which knocked down the men, who were victims of the war. The war has made the black-out necessary, and the blackout has brought about the accidents, but the widows are treated as in a different category from those whose claim was for husbands killed during actual war service. There is the case of a man who may have served his country well during four years. He emerges unscathed from the Army, and a year or two afterwards he dies. His widow is then put upon this penury basis. From her point of view it would have been better if her husband had met his death on war service. This matter ought to be dealt with in a more generous way, and I trust that the Government will give further consideration to the case of the widow whose husband has been killed in the ordinary industrial skirmish of life. Her husband may have worked in a blast furnace or in the heat of a foundry from early morning till late at night, walking to his home. In doing so, perhaps he took a severe cold and died. He was a victim of war production, and his work was as useful in the war as is the work of the


soldier at the front. The time has now come to raise the widows of the soldiers of industry to the same standard as the widows of those who died fighting in the Services, or at any rate to make their standards nearer to each other. The House will not be satisfied until that has been done.
I hope that the Government will not take the small attendance to-day as being indicative of a lack of interest. I am not going to argue about tobacco or beer. When a man gets 65 or 70 years of age you should give him a smoke or a glass of beer if he wants it. The present standard is miserably mean and low, and no one can justify it in any way at all. I trust that this House, small though the attendance is to-day, will not stop its efforts to see that the Government do the decent thing by the old people, especially as it is much more important now, because of the number of widows with children. What matters most is to see that every child is decently housed, fed and clothed.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) managed, with his usual dexterity, to cover a very wide field while still remaining in Order. I shall feel a little trepidation in following some of his arguments, and I certainly shall not occupy much of the time of the House. I thought he was a little unreasonable when he complained about the Minister's method of introducing these Regulations. It was not that the Minister was lacking in sympathy or human understanding; in explaining to this House the meaning of these Regulations, he confined himself to a well-prepared speech, which will set out for those who will see it in Hansard the exact way in which the Regulations will work. The hon. Member will remember that the general effect of what certain Regulations would be was very widely misunderstood some time ago.
I somewhat sympathise with the hon. Member's point that it is unfortunate that all these Regulations, and even the White Paper, should be cast in phraseology which it is difficult for hon. Members, and quite impossible for widows and old age pensioners, to understand. I would ask him to remember, however, that that is due to the attempt which is being made by the Assistance Board to make provision for each of the individual requirements of

those who are coming under the Regulations. Every effort is being made to meet individual requirements of individual cases, and that must necessarily result in the Regulations becoming more complicated. If we had some purely arbitrary scale laid down I think we should have had criticism from many Members that there were many particular cases where special assistance ought to have been given but would be excluded if the details were not included.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Member aware that the Assistance Board has power of discretion now?

Mr. Molson: One of the very few things about which the hon. Member for Gorbals was pleased was that the first part of the White Paper provided in the future that it should be dealt with by discretion.

Mr. Buchanan: No, Sir. What I was pleased about was that we are to get codification instead of the present jumble. I understand that the existing position is now to be codified and made simple, but that does not interfere with discretion.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member is mistaken if he thinks that codification will mean that allowances in particular cases are not going to be built up in the same way as they are now, taking into account the special requirements of individual cases, whether for rent, fuel or allowances for food. What I understand—and I shall be specially interested to hear about it from the Minister—to be meant by codification, which is promised for September, is that instead of there being entirely different rules laid down in different Regulations applying in different cases of assistance which are given by the Assistance Board, it is hoped that we shall have one single table which will deal with the whole matter. If it really means that the system upon which needs are determined is to be altered, I think there will be a certain amount of criticism and a desire to scrutinise any change of that kind.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has left the House. I make no complaint. He has been sitting here for a very long time; but he did rather ask that someone should express an individual opinion with regard to the scale which he himself advocated and which I understand to be £1 clear for each


individual, to which would be added the rent paid, whatever that rent might be. That suggestion goes considerably beyond the scale laid down in the Beveridge Report as being what would be introduced for the year 1965. The basic proposal of the Beveridge Report is 40s. a week for a married couple of pensioners, on the basis of a 10s. rent. Therefore, those of us who have accepted most wholeheartedly the recommendations of the Beveridge Report cannot possibly accept at this time the view of the hon. Member for Leigh, which obviously regards the proposals which have been made in the Report as quite inadequate.

Mr. Gallacher: The other day in this House, although I was not present at the time, there was a discussion on Regulation 18B, and many references were made to Magna Charta and the desirability of subjects being judged by their peers. Some hon. Members on the other side were very concerned about the principles of Magna Charta, but I never hear anybody on the other side disposed to suggest that those principles should apply to the old people and to the widows of this country. There has been a demand made, and it has been made for a long time by the Old Age Pensioners' Association, for a pension of 30s. a week. To the Members on the other side that appears to be a staggering amount of money. They are horrified at the thought of such a desire for a lavish and luxurious life, yet any Member on the other side in half-an-hour in any of their favourite clubs would dispose of at least three or four times that amount and never blink an eye. But the old age pensioners' demands are not conceded. Instead we get a slight change in the Regulations.
I remember there used to be quite a lot of discussion in the Socialist movement between the "whole huggers" and the "half loafers." The half loafers had no connection with the loafing fraternity who occupy the other benches. They used to say that half a loaf was better than no bread. But when the old age pensioners ask for a loaf, do they get half a loaf? No, not even a crust, but two or three little crumbs are picked up. The Government say, "Here is a crumb or two to be going on with." We are told from the other side that a few crumbs, however mouldy they may be, are better than no bread, but always they insist that these

men and women, the old age pensioners and the widows, shall go through a process of trial before they get anything over and above 10s. Is the other side prepared to apply the principles of Magna Charta? Will somebody kindly get up from the other side or the Government benches and talk about Magna Charta? No, the old age pensioners are to be tried before they get a penny, and it is not their peers who try them.
You have the spectacle of these widows and elderly people of 60, 70, 80 and even 90 years of age, and young smart Alecs who rush around to make investigations and whose whole concern is to justify their own existence by cutting down these pensioners to the very bone if they can. Why should young men or women who do not understand the problem of these old people be able to carry out such investigations and decide upon their fate? Why are not the old age pensioners given the responsibility of investigating as to who should have a supplementary pension? That is the principle of Magna Charta, the right to be tried to one's peers. All the time, month after month, these old folk and widows have to go through this process of trial. I do not know how anyone can talk as some Members so glibly talk—not so much to-day, but they used to—about a new world, when the Government and other side have every intention of dragging this abominable means test into that new world. But only for the poor—no questions of means test for the big pensioners. We have had Members on the other side of the House lecturing us on the fact that it is public money we are handing out and that there has to be a means test, [An HON.MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I ask the hon. Member whether he is in favour of a means test for the Lord Chancellor before he is given any public money?

Sir Granville Gibson: I would say that I do not suppose that the Lord Chancellor would object to a means test if one was necessary in his case.

Mr. Gallacher: That is a nice evasion of the question. 'Is the hon. Member in favour of the Lord Chancellor having to fill in a form saying how much money he has in the bank, how much money he has invested, how many members there are in the family, which of them are em-


ployed and what their earnings are? Is he in favour of such a test for thousands of pensioners in this country who are gettings pensions of £1,000 or £2,000 a year? To take another example, the policemen of this country have a pension of about £3 3s. a week after 25 or 30 years' service. The people we are now discussing have worked 50 years. I do not want the policemen to be asked any questions, but is there a Member on the other side who will get up and say, "This is public money we are handing out. We must have a means test for policemen before they get a pension." We have two classes—

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member appreciates that a policeman's pension is a form of deferred pay which a man has earned during his service?

Mr. Gallacher: Who produces the wealth to provide the policeman with his pay and his deferred pay? It is the workers of the country who produce the wealth.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I have given the hon. Member a good deal of latitude, but he is now going very wide of the Debate. We are discussing the amended Regulations.

Mr. Gallacher: I would be very pleased to change the title "Old age pension" to "deferred pay." It is called a pension for the policeman; it is called a pension for the working class. That is simply another evasion. I, and most Members on this side of the House, every Member of the Labour benches, I am certain, would plump for the immediate removal of the means test and the proper treatment of these old folk. Another point I want to draw attention to when we were discussing these Regulations before, and I have not yet got an answer. I tried to get that principal Act, but have not succeeded. In these present Regulations it is stated:
The maximum aggregate value of the money and investments treated as capital assets which are to be treated as equivalent to a specified weekly income by virtue of subparagraph (4), of paragraph 1, of Part 1, of the Second Schedule to the Principal Regulations, as amended by the Amending Regulations, shall be increased from three hundred pounds to four hundred pounds.
I understood that under the old Regulations if an old age pensioner had £300 of

capital he was ruled out so far as supplementary benefit was concerned. You will find that the £300 was the maximum and that with the is. notional income on £25 it worked out that he was not entitled to supplementary pension when he reached £300. What is the £400 for now? The only idea that I or any other Member has is that the £400 represents a maximum beyond which the pensioner has no right to supplementary pension; otherwise there is no reason for it being there. But the income standard is reduced. Instead of being is. to £25 it is now 6d. to so that if a man has £300 capital, he receives 10s. pension, and he has a notional income of 5s. 6d. per week after ignoring the first £25, that is altogether 15s. 6d. per week. He is entitled to 4s. supplementary pension plus 2s. 6d. that was added on. If he has 375, he has 10s. a week pension and 7s. notional income, that is 17s., and he is entitled to 2s. 6d. to bring him up to 19s. 6d. plus the 2s. 6d. that was added. If he has £400, he receives 10s. pension and 7s. 6d. per week notional income, which is 17s. 6d. 1s he left there, or is he entitled to get 2s. per week to bring him up to the 19s. 6d., plus the 2s. 6d. that was added some time ago? Is he, or she, entitled to 4s. 6d. supplementary pension? If he, or she, is so entitled, then making what is called a maximum capital asset such as £400 is an absurdity. I want to be clear on that simple question as to whether a man or woman who has £400 capital is entitled to 4s. 6d. supplementary benefit per week or whether if they have £400 they have to live on 17s. 6s. as against the 22s. which the others are getting. I raised the matter on the last occasion and I did not get any satisfactory answer.
Above everything else, I want to declare here, on behalf of the old age pensioners—and I am certain that I speak for most of the Members on this side of the House—that there will be no peace in this country among the workers, young and old, while there exists this means test, this vicious investigation of old folks' circumstances by young folk who are only concerned with justifying themselves by cutting down when they get the chance, this vicious means test against a section of the community. It means that there are two types of people in the country. If we are fighting a war against Nazi


racialism it is impossible and intolerable to carry on here the same sort of practices as the Nazis do, with one set of superior people at the tap getting any amount of public money and no questions asked, and with ordinary working-class people having to undergo mean, insidious investigations, the most insulting questions, and in some cases abominable impudence. Put an end to the means test and give the old folk what they are entitled to and what they deserve.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have had a very interesting Debate to-day on these Regulations. The one thing above all else that I have noticed is that not a single Member who has risen has commended these Regulations or sought to justify them. The Minister presented the Regulations in such a manner that an hon. Member sitting on that side of the House had to defend it. He presented them as though they really did not matter. He made no attempt to explain what the Regulations mean. I can only assume that, so far as that side of the House is concerned, there is no intention of having them explained. Is that because the Minister is ashamed of what has been done? Why has it been put in such an involved fashion? The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson.) felt that the responsibility was upon him to defend the Minister. The hon. Member said that of course it was a very difficult thing: it had to be extremely intricate in order to meet individual cases. That is quite untrue. The normal case is met by rule, and the abnormal case by discretion. There is no reason why these Regulations should come forward in a manner which mystifies almost every hon. Member. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) read one paragraph of this document. It was a lot of jargon, which does net make sense unless you apply a microscope to it. We are told that these are the things which matter. It is not more difficult than the calculation of war pensions. I would ask the House to compare the White Paper on war pensions with this memorandum. That White Paper was an excellent document. It dealt with precisely the same type of case, the same domestic circumstances, and the same differences in individual cases, and it was easily understood by the House. Why cannot the Assistance Board, under the direction of the Minister of Health, do things in the same

way? Is it because they want to wrap up what they do in mystery, so that they can do things which this House would not approve of? This is another chapter in the very long serial story of our tardy attempts to deal with the poor of this country.
Recently this House laid down what should be done in regard to the greatest section of widows and children. It made no mistake about that matter. The Minister co Pensions was kicked from pillar to post until proposals were brought forward for an adequate standard of existence for the widows and children of men who had been killed in the Forces—and not only men killed in the Forces, but men killed in Civil Defence, men killed on fire watching. Any gainfully-employed person killed in the blitz had his widow and children amply provided for to the satisfaction of this House, by and large. Now we come to this narrower section of widows and children—those of men who have died from natural causes. This White Paper is supposed to make plain what is intended. Even the Minister's statement did not make it plain. It is no secret that a number of speeches were prepared for delivery in this House to-day which had been based on the assumption that the amounts mentioned in Clause 2 of the White Paper were additions to the current scales. That was the idea of hon. Members who have been in this House for a very long time. I want to make my pro: test again about the nature of the White Papers and the Regulations which are submitted to this House by the Assistance Board. They are treating the House with scant respect, and, to use a vulgarism, they are attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. The second point I want to make is this. Why have these Regulations been left so late? Why have they not been produced before? The Minister is not showing his usual Sunday zeal in dealing with these old age pensioners. He has left it to the last possible moment, so that they are deprived of a period in which they could have been getting benefit.
What rates do these Regulations provide? I want to put this as simply as I can. I will take the story of five widows. The first, a householder, will get under these Regulations a scale rate of 23s. a week. The second widow, not a householder, will get a scale rate of 17s. Under the Unemployment Regulations the widow who is a householder would get


19s., and the widower who is a non-householder would get 13s. The war widow will get 28s. 6d. This House kicked up a tremendous row, and hon. Gentlemen opposite played their part in it, to establish that 28s. 6d. basis for the war widow, for the widow of the fire watcher, for the widow of the man in the National Fire Service, and now we are asked to justify a standard for other widows which is very much lower. A man may be engaged in fire watching at the colliery and be killed. His widow will get 28s. 6d. a week. Another man may be engaged on fire watching with him, and, because of the exhaustion that this war has imposed on our people, he may collapse after the fire watching shift has terminated. His widow, under these proposals, will get 23s. a week. What justification can there be for these differences in rates? Is it assumed that one widow requires less to maintain her than another widow does? I would be ashamed of myself if I assented to these Regulations, which provide in some cases 15s. a week less than is provided under the War Pensions proposals. I ask the House not to approve these Regulations.
Let us carry the matter one step forward, in regard to the children. Under these Regulations it is proposed to provide for one child aged eight to eleven 7s. 3d. a week, while under the War Pensions proposals the first child will receive 9s. 6d. A second child aged eight to eleven under these Regulations will get 6s. 9d., and the second child under the War Pensions proposals 8s. 6d. A third child aged five to eight under the Regulations will get 6s. 3d., while under the War Pensions proposals a third child will get 7s. 6d. A child of under five years under these proposals will get 5s. 9d., while under the War Pensions proposals the rate for the fourth child will be 6s. 6d. Why is it that children without fathers are treated entirely differently by the State? We condemn a civilian widow to maintain two children under five on 2S. a week more than a war widow gets for maintaining one child under five. We condemn a civilian widow with three children under five to maintain them on less than a war widow gets to maintain two children. I hope that the House appreciates what it is doing. The civilian widow will get less to keep three children than the widow of a man killed while fire

watching has for keeping two. This House is asked to approve this anomalous position, which is unjust to the widows and children of this country. These are the things the Minister ought to have told the House.
Under these Regulations a widow with one child, taking the best circumstances, will get 34s. 3d., while with a child in the lower age category she will get 28s. 9d. if she is a householder, and 24s. to 22s. if she is a non-householder. A widow in corresponding circumstances, with a child, will get under the War Pensions proposals 36s. 2d. Take the widow with two children. If she is a householder she will get 34s. 6d., and if she is a non-householder she will get 28s. 6d. under these proposals, whereas a widow with two children will get under the War Pensions proposals 44s. 8d. Take the widow with three children. She will get, in the best circumstances, if she is a householder, 42s. 9d., and if she is a non-householder she can get as little as 34s. 3d. Under the War Pensions proposals the rate would be 52s. 3d. Take a widow with four children—I might as well go through the whole lot. If all the children are in the higher age category, she will get 52s. under these Regulations, and if the children are in the lower age category, 46s. if she is a householder, while if she is a non-householder she will get 46s. if her children are in the higher age category and 40s. if they are in the lower age category. But if her husband had been killed fire watching, she would have got 58s. 9d. under the War Pensions scheme.
These proposals will leave the children of the unemployed exactly where they are. The widow who is on Unemployment Assistance will be left precisely where she is, 1s. a week per child worse off than she would have been under the lowest rates I have mentioned. I ask the Minister of Health, who is noted for certain characteristics, whether he regards this as practical Christianity to that section of the widows of this country. I again ask him why he did not tell the House these facts when he was explaining the Regulations to the House. The non-householder widow under these Regulations will have to keep herself and her four children on as much as 17s. 8d. a week less than a war widow in the same circumstances. I will ask the young Tories who represent, so they say, the spearhead


of the progressive view in their party whether this 18s. unit basis was not what they assisted to establish under war service grants? In these cases we have a unit basis of 13s. 4d., which is nearly 5s. a week less than in the case of the widows and orphans under war pensions.
I want to say a final word on the rates on which our people are expected to live. This House would be doing wrong to leave the position where it is. Here is a grave anomaly and injustice. I have not taken into account, in making these comparisons, education grants, special allowances which the Ministry of Pensions are authorised to issue and the continuation of pension while children are at school. These things do not operate under these Regulations because the pension in respect of a child terminates when the child ceases its supplementary pension. The Assistance Board is responsible for fixing the rates for three or four categories of people. They fix them for old age pensioners, the widows over 60, and now for the widows under 60 and the children, and for Unemployment Assistance purposes. The Assistance Board has condemned itself by the Regulations put before this House. Our demand should be that the Assistance Board as such should be abolished and that the authority should rest in this House in the hands of a Minister. One has to be fair to the Minister of Health, who stands between the Assistance Board and this House. You cannot very well kick the Assistance Board; you have to kick the Minister, because he is supposed to be responsible to this House.

Mr. E. Brown: There are three Ministers.

Mr. Edwards: I agree that there are three Ministers, but the Minister of Health is responsible for pensions purposes and all these Regulations dealing with the widows' position.

Mr. Brown: And the Secretary of State for Scotland also.

Mr. Edwards: The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the Scottish part. So far as we in England are concerned, it will be sufficient if we are able to kick the Minister of Health, and, of course, with regard to unemployment assistance, the Minister of Labour is responsible. The Regulations we are discussing to-day come largely within the

purview of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Invariably it has been the Minister of Health who has answered in this House and it has been his Parliamentary Secretary who has usually wound up the Debate, So I am afraid that, with all the dimensions in the front and as broad as the Ministers may be, they cannot heed the fact that the Assistance Board lags behind the intentions of this House. It is not playing either a full or a proper part in dealing with this social problem, and this White Paper is an outstanding condemnation of it and of its sheer incapacity.
I want to put two questions to the Minister, and their answers will determine my action in relation to the approving or negativing of these Regulations. I want to ask, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), that the operation of these things should be brought forward from 30th to 16th August. Are we to have an undertaking from that Box to-day that this is not the last word to be said on this question? Are we to have an undertaking that when we come back from the Recess the Assistance Board will be invited, not only to put a codified and simplified set of Regulations before us, but that we shall make adequate scales available for all people coming under the Assistance Board? Are the Government prepared to carry out the function of making adequate provision for these categories of pensions? If they are, will they give us an undertaking that, immediately we come back from the Recess and when we discuss the codification of all these Regulations, there will be included in the remodelled Regulations a proposal to increase the scales of supplementary pensions? We owe to these people a straight answer. We have been told about the effect of Beveridge and so on. This House has not decided on Beveridge. If the Minister wants to interject something, I will certainly give way.

Mr. E. Brown: I understood that hon. Members opposite wanted Beveridge.

Mr. Edwards: I do not know that that conflicts with what I said.

Mr. Brown: It looks like it.

Mr. Edwards: I said that this House had not taken a decision on Beveridge. That is not capable of Assistance Board wangling. You cannot


add 1,000 words which mean nothing. This House has not taken a decision on Beveridge, but it has taken a decision on what is adequate for widows and children. It has decided that an i8s. unit basis and 9s. per child, after the payment of rent and outlays, is the one at which to aim. Can the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give us any indication that the Government intend applying that standard to this category of widows who are now brought within the scope of supplementary pensions?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): Practically every speaker who has taken part in this Debate to-day has stressed the fact that the Regulations which we are discussing are extraordinarily difficult to understand. It is admitted that every additional Regulation that has had to be made as a result of the Determination of Needs Act applying to old age pensioners, and now to widows, has increased the difficulty of understanding exactly what is meant by the complicated Regulations that we have before us. We have had one or two quotations given from these Regulations proving how difficult it is to follow them. The Government themselves have admitted that difficulty. It is made clear in the White Paper that, recognising that difficulty, the Assistance Board is to codify and simplify the Regulations as speedily as possible. There are often difficulties in regard to simplification and codification when we are not dealing with the standardisation of pensions or allowances. Whenever you grant discrimination or when there are variations it inevitably creates difficulties in bringing about simplification and in giving necessary effect to the ideas you may have in connection with codification, but as far as possible it is the intention to codify and simplify these Regulations so that "He who runs may read."
Several points have been raised by various speakers in the Debate. The first point was raised by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), and it was referred to by one or two other speakers and by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). We were asked whether it was possible to bring the date forward for the application of the Regulations from 30th August to 16th August—a fortnight earlier. If it were possible

for it to have been done it would have been done, but it simply cannot be done.

Mr. Tinker: Why?

Mr. Westwood: Because it is administratively impossible.

Mr. Tinker: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. I have seen Bills rushed through this House in half a day.

Mr. Westwood: I have seen Bills rushed through. We are not dealing with Bills but with payments due to widows. There are variations of payment in connection with public assistance authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and these bring about all kinds of difficulties when dealing with administrative problems. Neither I nor even a senior Minister can give a guarantee or promise to this House on behalf of the Government to do some thing which administratively we know is impossible.

Mr. Messer: Payment can be made retrospective.

Mr. Westwood: I am trying to answer the point which has been put. We are of the opinion that it is administratively impossible to do what is asked.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman does not like to answer.

Mr. Westwood: I have given the answer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman likes it, but I am giving the fact. A comparison was made between the allowances to be paid to the widows. Here again the hon. Member for Abertillery gave certain figures in which he pointed out that an industrial widow with three children would get 20s. 3d. for the children compared with the 25s. 6d. for the war widow. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly went into more detail in giving us comparisons of the disadvantages of the industrial widow. All I want to say is that this House of Commons, rightly or wrongly—and I am not arguing the merits—has always assumed that pensions payable by the State to those bereft of breadwinners as a result of war, or of their parents as a result of the war, should be in excess of what is being paid to widows or the children of widows who have lost their lives in industry.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a man who is


conscripted and sent to a particular industry risks as much for the war effort as the man in khaki? Further, is he aware that a man who has been directed into industry and has died in it, or as a consequence of it, and does not get workmen's compensation, is in precisely the same position as a fire watcher?

Mr. Westwood: I have made it clear that it has been the will of the House up to the present time to have these differences.

Mr. Sloan: The will of the people on the opposite side of the House.

Mr. Westwood: It has been the will of the House. Let us be frank about it.

Mr. Sloan: Do not defend it.

Mr. Westwood: It is not my fault that there is not a majority of the same view as the hon. Member. It must be the fault of the people of this country.

Mr. Sloan: It will be the right hon. Gentleman's fault if he goes on as he is doing now.

Mr. Westwood: It has been the expressed will of the House up to the present time. Another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery was in connection with the distribution of blankets. I can assure my hon. Friend that in that arrangement there was wholehearted co-operation between the Ministry of Health, the Department of Health for Scotland and the Assistance Board. This arrangement was advantageous to the recipients of the blankets, who obtained them without coupons. The blankets were purchased by the State in connection with other possible requirements, and we made them available as a result of our co-operation.

Mr. Daggar: My right hon. Friend is misinterpretating what I said. My contention is, and always has been, that the mere fact of distributing blankets and providing winter allowances shows that the scale rates are not high enough. They are substitutes for a substantial pension.

Mr. Westwood: In many instances, even if the scales had been far higher, because of the shortage of material, it would have been impossible for the pensioners to get blankets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am stating the fact. There have been real

difficulties in getting the material. We had them in stock, and we distributed them. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised the point that whatever we do by simplification of the Regulations and by providing an opportunity to obtain full knowledge of the Regulations, the widow should know exactly what she is to receive. If we can get the simplification which some of us have in mind, an attempt will be made to ensure that the widow will know what she is entitled to receive. Another question was: Would it be possible to put into the Vote Office a circular or memorandum which would in as simple language as possible explain the Regulations. I can assure hon. Members that there will be available after this Debate a limited number of such copies.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If it is desirable, will there be issued another Paper to explain the Paper which is being issued today to explain the Regulations?

Mr. Westwood: I am doing my best to deal with the various points which have been raised. Please do not add any more.

Mr. Buchanan: What was the Paper that was issued?

Mr. Westwood: It was a Paper published by the Assistance Board in August 1942. It is not quite up-to-date, but we will bring it up-to-date.
Another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals was: Are the rights of widows safeguarded under our present proposals, where the rate of public assistance may have been higher than the rate of assistance now to be provided under the Assistance Board and the Regulations we are discussing? The answer is, "Yes." Whenever the scales are higher, then their rights are safeguarded. The widow will not receive less than she has been receiving. In Scotland, in most cases, there will be an increase as compared with the amount received under the public assistance scale, and I presume that the same will apply equally to England and Wales. With the exception of two authorities, namely, Glasgow Burgh and Stirling County, the scales now being discussed will be higher than those which have been paid by the public assistance authorities. But even in Glasgow and in Stirling County the widow with three children aged four, eight and 11 will,


under the new proposals, receive not less than the present scale which is payable by these authorities.

Mr. Buchanan: This new scale means that the widow with one child has less than what the Glasgow public assistance people are now paying for what used to be called "destitution relief." In other words, you are paying less on the national scales than Glasgow Burgh.

Mr. Westwood: In this particular case existing widows' rights are preserved. But the important thing is that so far as other authorities are concerned they get an advantage.

Mr. Gallacher: Does it mean that if a widow now drawing public assistance is transferred she gets the amount she was getting from public assistance and that next year a widow who has never drawn public assistance and is in the some position will get a lower scale?

Mr. Westwood: She will come within the national scale. In Scotland widows do, as a class, stand to gain. With the two exceptions I have mentioned all other authorities are paying less than the scale which is now being discussed.

Mr. Buchanan: Surely in an enlightened community you would not take the example of these authorities.

Mr. Gallacher: It means that two widows living next door to each other will get different rates next year.

Mr. George Griffiths: Could my right hon. Friend tell us whether the scales in the West Riding of Yorkshire will be higher or lower?

Mr. E. Brown: We will let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Westwood: A further point was raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals with regard to the development of school feeding in Scotland. He wanted to know whether the feeding of these children in school would be taken into account in fixing the scale which would be paid to the widow. The answer is that no account whatever will be taken of the arrangement for such feeding. The hon. Member also asked: Where a widow does not go into industry because of illness or some other cause and who may have to be sent to a hospital or infirmary to get proper

treatment, does that mean that the scale will not apply to her? Again, on the advice given to me, she will be allowed to continue the scale for at least six months. At the end of that time the matter is still open for reconsideration by the Assistance Board.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can we get this quite clear, because the Minister is making a statement which seems in conflict with the practice of the Assistance Board? Are we to understand that a person coming under these Regulations who goes into a public institution for treatment will continue to receive supplementary pension for six months after entering the institution?

Mr. Westwood: No, I did not say that. I dealt with the hospital and the infirmary. I used those exact words, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals has in mind my point as to where special treatment ought to be given. In this case payment is not suspended at once. Time is taken to consider all the factors.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry to interrupt, but we must get this clear. If a pensioner goes into a private hospital, the supplementary pension has been continued, but if he goes into a county or rate-maintained hospital, what is the position?

Mr. Westwood: If he goes into a public institution which is solely or mainly maintained by the rates or the State, that is an entirely different thing from what I have been trying to put to the House in answering a point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals. I would require to make further inquiries into the point which is now being raised, because I do not want to mislead the House. No matter on which side of the House I have sat, I have never yet tried to mislead hon. Members.

Mr. Gallacher: Does it mean that if a patient goes into a voluntary hospital the supplementary pension continues but that if the patient goes into a hospital under the control of the local authority the supplementary pension ceases?

Mr. Westwood: No, that is not even so so far as a public institution is concerned, because there are certain arrangements under which payments have to be made to keep up the payments the patient was making, within certain limits, before


the patient went into the institution. All this lets hon. Members see how difficult and intricate it is to deal with these complications in trying to put into simple language the meaning of the Regulations. I think I have dealt with the main points that have been raised in the Debate.

Mr. Gallacher: I want an answer to my question. Will a man with a capital of £400 be entitled to 4s. 6d. supplementary pension?

Mr. Westwood: I should require to know exactly where that capital was invested—

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I think it would be better to let the Minister explain a rather difficult position without quite so much interruption.

Mr. Gallacher: I mean £400 of non-exempted capital.

Mr. Westwood: It is clear that, if he has over £400 of non-exempted capital, there is no supplementary pension. That is the law. But it is quite possible under the Regulations for a man to have a house of the value £1,000 and for a man and wife to have between them £500 Savings Certificates. That shows how difficult it is, in dealing with this complicated problem, to give a direct answer to the question whether a man with £400 can claim a supplementary pension. I have tried to give the answer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can we have an undertaking that the codification of the Regulations will provide for a declared standard of supplementary pensions?

Mr. Westwood: All I can say is that when the new Regulations are before the House the whole question can be debated. I can give no assurance, I have no instructions to give an assurance, that anything can be done other than the passing of these Regulations to-day. I can give no guarantee with regard to any increase of the pensions. We are discussing the Regulations, which improve the lot so far as widows and thrifty persons are concerned by reducing by 50 per cent. the penalty on thrift and increasing the savings by £100 These are the Regulations that the House is being asked to pass to-day, and I hope we are going to

get unanimous backing in passing Regulations which undoubtedly will improve the lot of widows and old age pensioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under the Unemployment Act, 1934, as applied by the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 29th July, be approved.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

Resolved,
That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, made under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 29th July, be approved."—[Mr. Tomlinson.]

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

Mr. Tinker: During the Debate on the Regulations I put certain questions to which the Minister could not reply under the conditions of the Debate, and I should like to emphasise again the point of view that I put. The Memorandum leads us to believe that the Assistance Board is looking at the matter. In our minds one thing is prominent. I understand they are dealing with the rates. If that is so, what are the intentions of the Government, and what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite? The present supplementary allowance is not sufficient to meet the needs of the old people. That is admitted by everyone. It has grown up piecemeal, a little there in winter, taken off in summer, and all the time everyone realises that it is not sufficient. Now we have an opportunity for the House to say what they think about it. It will be an expression of opinion which will carry weight with the. Assistance Board, which is a statutory Board governed largely by opinion in the country and the House of Commons, and, if we emphasise what we think is a fair basis of what old age pensioners should have by way of supple-


mentary payment, we shall impress those people when they are examining them.
When I have argued for an increase in the basic rate this is what I have been met with. Am I arguing for more money for people who may have a fairly adequate income and asking that something should be added to it by the State? I am not arguing that to-day. I am asking what we think is adequate to keep aged people who have no other means than 10s. and the supplementary pension. Should the figure be 15s., 17s., 18s. or £1 for each unit apart from rent? Do they think that anything less than £1 is sufficient? It is for the House to decide what can be done to put these people in a position of something like security. It is not too much to ask for that to be examined thoroughly. I am urging hon. Members opposite who from time to time have come forward to help us to join with us to-day. I ask them to say that something better ought to be given to our aged people.

Mr. Lipson: I am glad my hon. Friend has made an appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House, because I feel that it will be most unfortunate if the impression, which I think a wrong one, were created that interest in the well-being of old age pensioners was confined to one party. This is a very human problem which, I am sure, is the concern of Members of all parties. The question of the treatment of old age pensioners has been raised again and again, and the time is long overdue when some generally acceptable basis of settlement should be arrived at so that the question need not be constantly brought up. I do not think it fair to the old people to make their affairs the subject of constant debate, nor is it consonant with our dignity that we should not be able to arrive at some permanent -settlement of the question. I have no right to speak on behalf of others, but, speaking for myself, I accept the suggestion the hon. Member has made as a reasonable basis, that the basic rate of a supplementary pension after allowance for rent should be £1 a week. No one familiar with the needs of the individual household would say that that errs on the side of generosity. It is a minimum which we ought to be prepared to accept. I have pleaded again and again for an increase in the basic rate, but that has been

refused by the Government on the ground that such money as was available should go to those in need, and the supplementary pension meets cases of that kind. I admit the force of the argument, particularly in war-time, when many old age pensioners may have other sources of income, but if the Government refuse an increase in the basic rate, it is only right that they should be prepared to accept a basic rate of £1 for the supplementary pension, because that is only paid after the fullest investigation by the Assistance Board into the needs of the individual. I therefore gladly respond to the hon. Member's appeal, and, if it is found generally acceptable that the basic rate for supplementary old age pensions should be £1 for the individual, after allowance has been made for rent, I hope the Government will take note and that it will have the effect of taking the question from the arena of debate and controversy for a long time.

Mr. Mathers: I am sure I am like others in being profoundly disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken by the Assistance Board on this occasion to bring in Regulations of much wider scope than those provided for in the last Act that we passed. It was necessary to bring in the widows and to deal with the long outstanding question of removing to some extent the penalty upon thrift, but it seems to me that it was well within their power at the same time to bring in Regulations with a much wider scope dealing with the whole question of supplementary pensions which come within their purview. The absence of that action on the part of the Assistance Board is an indication that they are not sufficiently in touch with the sentiment of the House, which I believe is very widespread, that an improvement must be made in the position of old age pensioners generally. I am certain that that sentiment is also held all over the country, and I should have thought the Assistance Board was sufficiently aware of it. Surely they will pay attention to the Debate that has taken place to-day. It seemed to me that they paid little attention to the last full-dress Debate on old age pensions. If they had they would have realised beyond doubt that what was expected of them was a considerable improvement in supplementary pensions. Members have with regret come to the position to-day of find-


ing that no undertaking can be given about the immediate future. We shall soon be near the period when winter allowances become payable and we are left in the position of having to go back to our constituents unable to carry to them a message of hope and encouragement that something definite will be done for old age pensioners. I refrain from indicating a fixed amount that would be satisfactory to them, but we can remember how disappointed the House and the country and the pensioners themselves were about the fact that only 25. 6d. was added to supplementary pension on the last occasion. We look for something in advance of that when the next review takes place.
It is regrettable that the attention of this House so often requires to be drawn to this problem. I am anxious to see it taken away from the realm of continued bickering in this House and controversy outside, and to see a position in which the old age pensioners will feel that they have got something like a fair deal during a time when their needs have certainly increased to a considerable extent. A contrast has been drawn between the treatment of war casualties and their dependants and the treatment of those who are casualties on the industrial field. This wide disparity should not be allowed to continue, and even if we cannot completely bridge the gulf it should be made much narrower. The responsibility should be accepted by those who have to deal with these matters and they should react to the mood of the House and the country by making at the earliest possible moment a considerable advance on the position as it is to-day.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who takes such an interest in the old people, invited Members on this side of the House to give their views on the constructive proposal which he made to pay the old people without means 20s. a week in addition to their rent. I would like to assure him that the suggestion makes an immediate appeal to me. I would like the Government seriously to investigate how much that would cost per annum and to take a courageous view of our ability to foot the bill. As I understand the position, an old age pensioner without means receives 22s. in the summer and 24s. 6d. in the winter. If we take the summer figure,

it will cost us only an extra 3s., based on a 5s. rent, to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leigh. I have always taken the view in previous Debates on this subject that we have marched forward a long way. I well recollect the Debates in the early days of 1940 when we spent ten days of Parliamentary time in the middle of a great war on the supplementary pensions Act.
Ever since I have been very disturbed as to the balance between the needs of the old people and the capacity of the nation to pay. Hon. Members opposite who have been speaking to-day are not making a good illustration of our ability to pay when they talk of our spending £15,000,000 a day on the war. That would be a very good reason for not doing any more than we need do for old age pensioners. The point that does arise is whether the old people can live on less than 20s. a week. If they cannot it is our bounden duty to find the money to help them. I do not think 3s. will break us; it cannot have such a great effect on us. It is true, as the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) pointed out, that Sir William Beveridge, a great economist, after months of study, came to the conclusion that after 20 years' contributions the amount given to an old couple should be 40s. based on a 10s. rent. The proposal of the hon. Member for Leigh carries that 10s. a week further, for he suggests 40s. exclusive of rent, which will probably be rather more than 10s.

Mr. Molson: The calculation put forward by Sir Wm. Beveridge was based on a calculation of what was needed to avoid destitution.

Mr. Robertson: I fully appreciate that, as I do all the other principles and implications of the Beveridge Report, which I heartily support. I have also a good deal of sympathy with the Government's view that at this stage of the war, when they cannot possibly foresee what lies ahead of us, they are naturally diffident about taking a step forward like that. At the same time I am consumed with this question whether the old people have enough to live on. I say that after over 12 months' intimate association with the old people of my constituency. My constituents opened a club for elderly people which is doing great good. They provide good companionship, which is one of the most important things of all for the old


folk; we have not talked about it to-day but another thing we must consider is the need of removing loneliness. Among the amenities the club provides are a two-course lunch for 8d., tea at a 1d. a cup, and a high tea for 6d. I have learned in recent months that certain members have not been regularly taking the lunch or tea because they have not enough money to pay for it. If that is true it is a strong indication that something more is required than we are paying the old people now. If they are unable to pay 8d. for a two-course hot lunch or 6d. for a high tea the sooner they have the money the better. I have great sympathy with the Ministers who are responsible, and if they will investigate the project of the hon. Member for Leigh and let the House know what it will cost and what the risks are, I am very hopeful that Members on all sides will rally behind them.

Mr. Sloan: One feels that old age pension Debates in this Chamber are like a funeral march. It is surprising that we should have so many Debates and so many plausible statements and arguments made by Ministers why we should not do justice to the old folk. I do not know how many old age pension Debates we have had since the beginning of the war. They are innumerable, and they show how difficult it is to extract even 6d. or 1s. a time for the pensioners. The war has taken a turn for the better and there are many sections of the community who are hoping that it will be over in a short time. They are looking forward with pleasurable anticipation to the post-war period. There is one section of the community which has no reason to have any pleasure, and that is the old age pensioners. They are people who have played their part in the life of the community for half a century. Many of them were just as important as any people sitting in this House, if there are any important people in the House. They have laid the foundations for the wealth from which all pensions are paid, but to the eternal disgrace of this House they have had to organise themselves into an association in order to compel justice from the Government. Many of these old people were at one time active in the trade union and labour movement and they have now to start again to organise themselves into

associations to secure justice for the people of their day and generation.
If any person can derive any satisfaction from the Debate we have had to-day, I would like to know who he is. These grudging and cheese-paring concessions of 6d. and 1s. in the face of the demands of the pensioners is a direct insult to them. When Debates take place on trade union matters we have Members putting forward the demands of organised labour, and we have a right to put forward the demands of the organised old age pensioners, and thousands of others who are not pensioners but only old people. They are demanding a pension of 30s. per week, and it is for this House to say, when the time comes, whether this demand can be met or not, whether this great nation which can spend £15,000,000 a day or more on non-productive work, can throw away £15,000,000 a day without any return of any kind, is able to spend 30s. a week on the old people.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has mentioned the figure of 30s. a week. To bring about that pension would mean legislation, and he is getting on to the danger line.

Mr. Sloan: I was not feeling that we were going to bring in legislation to-day. I was only suggesting what the old age pensioners are demanding. We may get an Old Age Pensions Bill when we come back after the holiday. Why should we not do justice to the old people? If it had not been for those old people, many of us would not be here to-day. They laid the foundations of the industry of this country. In the county where I live only two pits have been sunk in the last 25 years, which means that all the collieries now operating there are the work of people who are now in this category of old age pensioners. To-day we are living on their industry and their work. They created all the wealth in the country, sunk all the pits, built all the ships, built all the factories—yes, and the distilleries and breweries too—and surely it is possible for the Government to give them a little of the wealth which they have created.
To-day we are being planned out of existence. We are told we shall have the New Jerusalem. Post-war planning committees are operating in every direction. They have it all blue printed ready to give


us a new existence when the war is over. But I am not so sure that it is all going to happen. One of the reasons why I am not so sure is the attitude taken up towards these old age pensioners. We have had the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) telling us that even if we can supply cups of tea at Id. the old age pensioners are unable to purchase them. He said that if we raised the supplementary pension to 205.they would be able to buy cups of tea. That reduces the whole matter to an absurdity.

Mr. Robertson: I think the hon. Member himself is reducing the whole matter to an absurdity. I referred to meals at 8d. and high teas at 6d. As to the penny for the single cup of tea, he is stating an extreme case, which is quite wrong.

Mr. Sloan: After all, if the old age pensioners could not spend 8d. for the dinner, they would not have the penny for a cup of tea, and so it logically reduces itself to the same thing. Statements were made by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) when he opened the former Debate which should have convinced every hon. and right hon. Member opposite. In my constituency there is an old age pension association and the chairman and the secretary of it are as active as any men who are here. We are nearly all in the old-age pension class here. They passed a resolution and sent it to me last week. They have made their demands clear, definite and precise. It is a county where people sometimes grow old. There are many counties where people never grow old, because of the living conditions, but we have plenty of fresh air and plenty of fresh milk in Ayrshire and the result is that we have probably a greater percentage of people of pensionable age than any other area of the country. Therefore we have more demands from Ayrshire.
Every Debate in this House ends up on the same note: There is a plausible statement from the Minister; a threat that if we do not accept some new regulation we shall shut out the old people from some small increase; critics are told they are trying to turn the regulation into a controversial measure and that controversial measure must not be discussed at the present time. This matter must be brought to a definite issue. We must insist upon something in the nature of justice being done to the old people. The hon. Member for Abertillery said that even

if the increase were granted the position of old age pensioners would be worse today than in 1940. Something must he done if that is the case. We cannot ask old age pensioners to help to pay for the war out of their meagre pittances. The war must be paid for out of the industry of the people. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) reminded us that pensions to civil servants, pensions to teachers pensions to the Army and Navy, pensions to the constabulary, pensions to the officials of local authorities are all paid for by people who themselves are deprived of pensions.
In my county the people are paying through their rates for the pensions of the staffs of local authorities. The county has adopted a superannuation scheme, and all, from the county clerk down to the scavenger, can now be superannuated, and it is all being paid for by those who themselves have been refused pensions. What a scandalous state of affairs. What a ridiculous position in which to place ordinary human beings. And not only do they provide the pensions, they provide the wages and salaries, because neither of them grow on trees. It is elementary economics that it is only out of the produce of a country that pensions and wages and salaries can be paid, and yet the people who are paying them are to get no pensions. I hope the result of this Debate will be that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health will have a little "confab" together. I do not know whether they get on well together, but I ask them to have a nice little private conference, and then to put their demands to the Cabinet and tell them "If you do not meet our demands in this matter you will have to look for another Secretary of State and another Minister of Health." That is the way they ought to do the business, and if they do not do it we can only assume they are not wholeheartedly behind the old age pensions movement.

Mr. Tom Brown: One of the things that surprises me is the patience of the Minister, which has been manifest when old age pensions have been debated in the House. I have tried to follow the Order Paper from 21st October last year, and time after time I have seen on the Order Paper Questions to the Minister of Health asking when he will be prepared to give some assurance to our old age pen-


sioners, and every time we have been amazed at his patience and the sympathy which has been manifested towards the question. I am hoping that to-day, following on the pleas which have been made by other hon. Members, we shall have some pronouncement from his Department as to what they are prepared to do when the House reassembles. I have lived sufficiently long to realise that this life is full of expectations and disappointments. Every morning we expect something and we are disappointed. There are very few who always get what they expect. I want the Minister to tell us what is behind the mind of the Government on this question. As I said on 17th February, no one in the House or outside the House can justify the continuance of the present rates of pensions. No regard has ever been paid to the increase in the cost of living and that is a vital matter to our old age pensioners. As I have said, life is full of expectations and disappointments, and thousands, even millions, of old age pensioners are disappointed with the Government.
I speak as an ex-miner, and it is a tragedy to me to know and to feel that old age pensioners, who have served in their day and generation the mining, textile, engineering, or some other industry, or in many other walks of life, are, in the eventide of their lives, compelled to organise in order to secure from the Government that which the Government ought to give to them with a willing mind and a generous heart. We are faced with an old age pensioners' organisation, with branches springing up all over the country. This House and the Minister ought to know that the younger people of this country are now giving their sympathetic support to the plea that is being advanced on behalf of and by the old age pensioners.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government and the Department are so hesitant and so reluctant in coming forward with a scale of payments which would relieve old age pensioners of the poverty and squalor in which they now live. I often ask myself the question, "Why, oh why, do not the Government come forward with something more human and generous?" It ought to be remembered that we have more than 3,000,000 old age pensioners and that one

out of 13 of our people gets a pension of some description. Not one of them receives a pension adequate to a decent standard of life. I ask myself another question, "When are the Government going to treat these men and women with the consideration they deserve?" What impresses me most in connection with the discussion I have had on this subject is that time and time again the old people in my division have said, "We are the mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers of those men and women who saved this country in 1940–41 from the onslaught of the Nazi tyrants." Surely these people are entitled to better treatment than they now receive. Their needs are very urgent, and some improvement in their pensions scale is long overdue. Several responsible Ministers have said in the past few months that any increase in pensions rates would involve great administrative changes and great financial obligations; ever since September, 1939, and up to the present time every step taken by the Government in the prosecution of the war has involved great administrative changes and greater financial obligations. True to the honour of the people of this country, the Government have faced the position with a great deal of courage and administrative genius. Surely, after waiting for so long, we are not asking too much that the Government should face the old age pension position with courage and fortitude as a very important and urgent matter of giving adequate pensions to the old people who have served their day and generation by giving of their very best.
Taxes unequalled in the history of this country have been faced with little or no complaint by the people, who are prepared to face greater calls if they can have the assurance that additional taxation will relieve the poverty and squalor of our old age pensioners. As one who has had some experience in the last few months of moving about the country and coming into contact with different people in various walks of life, I express my firm belief that public opinion is stronger on the side of adequate pensions for our old people than it ever has been in our history. It is not asking too much that the Government should face the reality of the situation and not shelter themselves by making further promises which may not materialise until after the war. The Minister will pardon


me if I use an expression, which he will no doubt understand. It is:
Now is the day of salvation; now is the accepted time
to deal generously with adequate pensions for our old people. Procrastination is the thief of time, and to postpone any longer this matter is stealing what should be given to the old age pensioners now. On 17th February I referred to the row in which I lived. I saw those people yesterday morning, living a life of monotony, just pursuing the daily round and common task, with no change at all—no holidays, no pictures and no social amenities, but simply drudgery from morning till night. I do ask the Minister and the Government to give this House some assurance that we may expect an increase for our old age pensioners before the winter of this year dawns upon us.

Mr. Storey: Like other hon. Members on this side of the House, I want to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that we should give our views as to whether the provision at present made is adequate or not, but before I do so I would congratulate him upon having abandoned his request for a flat-rate increase for all pensioners, whether they need it or not—

Mr. Messer: We need it.

Mr. Storey: —and has limited his request to an increase in the basis of supplementation.

Mr. Tinker: Under the rules of the Debate I am compelled to do that, but I have not dropped it from my mind. I have to use my Parliamentary time to persuade other hon. Members.

Mr. Storey: I understood from what he said to- day that he had done so. I do not want to press that point, but I want to deal with the question he asked us to deal with, namely, whether the provision made at the present time is adequate or not. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken asked us to be human and generous; we all want to be human and generous, but we must look at this matter in the right perspective. What we are doing is to redistribute the national income. We are taking from those who have above a minimum and giving it to those who are below the minimum. When the social survey shows that working-class

families who are above the minimum have many times the deficiency of those who are below the minimum, I am quite prepared to face such redistribution. If we attempt such redistribution, it follows that we must hold the balance fairly, for it is not now a question of soaking the rich but is a question of taxing those who are not far above the level of those who are in receipt of supplementation. Supplementation, therefore, must be adequate, but it must not be lavish, and while it takes account of capital assets, it must not penalise thrift. I turn first to the question of whether it is adequate.
I would once again remind the House of the very careful inquiry which an expert Committee made on behalf of Sir William Beveridge when he was preparing his Report and of the fact that those inquiries resulted in Sir William Beveridge recommending a scale to meet the requirements of the retired couple. That scale at 1938 prices amounted to 29s. 6d. If we add 30 per cent. to bring that figure up to the present price level, we bring Sir William Beveridge's 29s. 6d. to 38s. 6d., which is to be compared with the Assistance Board's 37s. To make a fair comparison we have to add to the latter figure the value of the winter allowance, is. 3d. a week, and to put the rent on the same basis as in the Beveridge scale we have to add another 2s. 6d. to the Assistance Board figure. We are left with the comparison that the Assistance Board's figure is now 40s. 9d. and the Beveridge proposal, which is part of the plan which so many of us in this House wish to see implemented, is 38s. 6d. In addition, we have to remember that the Assistance Board have power to help applicants with clothing, bedding and household supplies, and, whether some people like it or not, in present circumstances, as I think was shown to-day over the question of blankets, it is necessary that some of this help should be given in kind.
I turn now to whether the provision for capital assets penalises thrift. No one who considers fairly the way in which capital assets will in future be treated can deny that the treatment is generous. The value of a house in which an applicant lives is disregarded; 10s. 6d. superannuation, which after all is a capital asset, is disregarded; £375, or if the wife has also war savings, £750, of war savings are also disregarded. In passing, I should say


that I have a great deal of sympathy with those who saved during the last war and who feel it rather hard that their savings, if over £400, are taken into account, while those who have saved in this war £375 or £700 for a married couple, have those savings disregarded. When those items have been disregarded, other savings up to £400 are taken into account only on a most generous scale. When we consider the figures, we find that a pensioner who has between £375 and £400 is only, on the average, asked to contribute 2s. 6d. per week out of his savings towards meeting the cost of keeping himself; a man between £275 and £300 only has to use his savings at the rate of 1s. 8d. per week; between £175 and £200, only at the rate of rod.; while between £75 and £100 he has to use nothing at all. I submit that on those figures the treatment of capital assets is generous.
The other thing we hear about the way in which old age pensioners are treated is that the treatment of the Assistance Board is harsh. That is certainly not my experience. Indeed, I am sometimes surprised how far the Assistance Board have stretched their discretion in order to help an applicant. I have also been surprised by how few complaints I have received from my constituency, which, after all, is a constituency which has had more than its fair share of unemployment, and to a much greater extent than most constituencies has used up its resources in capital and household goods and other things. I am surprised how very few complaints indeed—I used to have a great many—I have received since the Assistance Board took over the administration of supplementation.
I have sought to show that supplementation is in my opinion adequate, that it is sympathetically administered and is generous in its treatment of capital assets. I have made similar statements in this House before, and on one occasion the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), who I am glad to see has just come back, said he would like to have me on a platform in my constituency and let them hear the sort of statement I had made. I therefore want to call on the hon. Member to support the three contentions I have made, that supplementation is generous, that the administration is not harsh and that

capital assets are generously treated. Speaking on 29th July, 1942, the hon. Member said:
I am not going to damn the supplementary pension. I say candidly that it has brought happiness to thousands of old age pensioners.
That is my first point. I go on to the second:
I have damned the investigators in the past and I have had my reasons for doing so. I have gone to the office and told them some names, with knobs on, but the investigators now, as far as my folk are concerned, are behaving like ladies and gentlemen. I want to give praise where it is due.
That is my second point. Here is what the hon. Member said about my third point:
I am sorry that these Regulations do not give some increase to the people who have been thrifty in the past and have a pound or two in the bank. If they have done so, the old age pensioners all over the country would have risen up and called the Government blessed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1942; cols. 594-3, Vol. 382.]
Since that speech was made—

Mr. George Griffiths: That was my speech, not the hon. Member's?

Mr. Storey: Yes, I was quoting it to show that my contention that pension supplementation was adequate, that the administration was not harsh and that treatment of capital assets was generous was justified. I would remind the House that that speech was made over a year ago, and that we have in these Regulations and in the Bill we recently passed so treated capital assets that I think every pensioner who fairly considers the matter will, as the hon. Member put it, "rise up and called the Government blessed."
While supplementation must always produce hard cases and anomalies, there is only one way to avoid the majority of those cases, and that is by an adequate system of contributory insurance. Every day's delay in starting such a scheme is a mistake. It means that more and more young people are passing the age of 16 without starting to contribute to an adequate old age pension, and that when the Government do, as they will have to do, increase old age pensions they will have to carry a greater burden because when the scheme starts they will have to carry the backwash of all those who pass the age of 16 without starting to contribute towards such a contributory scheme.
I have no doubt myself that the great bulk of citizens would welcome the opportunity to contribute to higher pensions on an actuarial basis. That is certainly my own experience. In my own business all my employees have to contribute to the firm's superannuation scheme; most of them contribute to the State contributory old age pensions scheme; some of them contribute to union superannuation schemes. Yet, when an additional voluntary scheme was ma de available to them in which the firm did nothing except provide facilities for the weekly collection of the premiums, a large percentage of them, in addition to the other forms of insurance they were interested in, took out supplementary policies. From that I judge that a sound contributory pensions scheme on an actuarial basis would meet with the general approval and the ready support of the citizens of this country. I therefore conclude by pressing upon the Government that at the earliest possible date they will put forward a sound contributory scheme even if it means a long transitional period, so that we may see the time ahead when supplementation will only be necessary when ill health and excessive unemployment prevent those who are members of it from paying their contributions.

Mr. Pearson: The White Paper has presented us with two blessed words, "codification" and "simplification." I hope that in. the task that the Government intend facing it will result in the old age pensioners having a more gracious setting than they have had hitherto. The hon. Member who preceded me appeared to me to anchor his remarks too firmly to the Beveridge proposals. The need to-day is the immediate appeal, which has been supported almost unanimously by hon. Members in all parts of the House, for something to be done for the old age pensioners. The improvements that the House has just passed will be very welcome, but further consideration should be given to the scales of supplementary pensions for the old folk. The absence of provision for them in to-day's Regulations will grievously disappoint old age pensioners. If the code which it is proposed to make available, I trust at a not distant date, fails to better the lot of the old age pensioners I believe that many hon. Members of this House will revolt.
Present scales are inadequate for a

reasonable livelihood; they condemn the aged to a comparatively mean and scanty life. The time has arrived to move forward from this point. One finds a very strong and clear opinion in the country as to the desirability of giving a higher maintenance income to the supplementary pension class. The House cannot remain contented unless there is a change for the better from the meagre life that the old folks are forced to live. Will not the Government stretch out a helping hand in the task of this codification and simplification by giving increased scales? It would be a very hard-hearted Minister if he did not do his best for the easing of the difficulties now weighing upon a very deserving section of the people of our country. It is a shameful social evil that allows no more than an expenditure of 3d. per meal per day, and that is all that our existing supplementary scales allow. The public conscience must be sharpened so as to compel the Government to lay down reasonable minimum income standards. Anything less must be looked upon as wrong. Therefore, I say they should be swept away, despite the difficulty that may be in the way.
From our capacity in these days to create wealth surely can be wrested some standards of supplementary pensions of the aged? I appeal for a more gracious setting to enfold the autumn years of old age, and if this House shows the will, then the way can be found. There are examples that need to be cleared away of a deep measure of parsimony. It has been referred to in previous speeches. For instance, a man and wife, where the wife is below pension age, receive Is. less per week. That savours of the petty and the mean. Surely there is not the difference in the amount of goods that are consumed per week just because the wife may be just under 60 years of age? Again, I say that if this treatment was designed to hurt it could not be better conceived. Let us abolish it as something unworthy of Britain. Discrimination between the sexes, again, is a relic that should be swept away. The scale rate differentiates by is., which I believe it is time to wipe out. The third category of scale variations is that of non-householders. It is a vexatious piece of finesse. The differentiations in the scales of these categories in the existing Regulations ought to be ended. There can be no insurmountable barriers in the way of smoothing out these


rates. I look to the need for codifying the Regulations as offering an opportunity of expanding minimum incomes. A good standard of maintenance is a good national investment. I urge as a firm next step the laying down of scales for a man and wife of £2 2s. a week and 25s. a week for a single person. Welfare and a greater measure of happiness will ensue. Such are the best dividends worthy of realisation.

Mr. Messer: I must confess that in all the Debates which have taken place on old age pensions I have risen at the end of the day with a feeling of very deep depression. It has always seemed to me that what we have been engaged in doing is huckstering and bartering, pleading and appealing for a few shillings a week for a section of our people, to give them the right, which is the right of every man and woman in the world, to live. Living is not just eating, drinking and sleeping, and I think it is true to say that the illustration made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) about the social side of life, has a great deal of value. I do not altogether agree with his remarks, for, while he was sympathetic to the claims of these old people, he was careful to say at the end that we have to see that the nation can afford it, that we can foot the bill. I would remind him of the White Paper on Education, in the first paragraph of which there was something which I think is worth consideration. It approached the subject, not from the standpoint of whether we could afford to do it, but of whether we could afford not to do it. It seems, to me that too often we base our views of these things on an economic plane. We first consider whether it will pay, rather than whether it is right. We should view this subject first from the standpoint of its morality, rather than the standpoint of its expediency. As was stated by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), this is an adjustment of income. If you do not give these old age pensioners enough to keep them living outside an institution, you will have to pay very much more to keep them inside. It was said from these benches that they cannot force their demands by going on strike. I am inclined to think that if all the old age pensioners did go on strike, say, by going into a Poor Law institution, it would cost very much more

to keep them there than it costs to keep them outside.
The trouble with our social legislation in this country has always been its lack of planning. It is a kaleidoscopic patchwork. We have recognised the need, but not until public opinion has compelled us to have we done anything to meet that need. The result is a patchwork system which baffles the true sociologist. One side of our social legislation has no relation to the other. We must plan so that our social services bear some relation to each other. In that connection, it would be difficult for anybody to argue that an old age pensioner should for any reason be treated differently from any other old person. Why should a policeman, who, some people say, produces no wealth at all, although at any rate he protects wealth, have a pension which is paid for out of the wealth produced by people who themselves are not entitled to a pension when they are no longer able to continue in industry? It is time that we planned our social services on a recognition of the human rights of the individual. I have never been able to understand why the roadsweeper is entitled to a pension big enough to keep him when he retires from work, while the man or woman in the factory is expected to live on 10s. a week. Ten shillings a week is not enough to keep anybody. We have supplementary pensions because it is recognised that 10s. is not enough. Just as a measure of expediency, we introduced this very cumbrous machinery of supplementary pensions.
From the standpoint of justice and equity, there can be no question that the old man and woman are entitled to as much as will enable them to live, not extravagantly but in security, not having to look at every day's food to see whether they can spin it out enough to reach the end of their financial week when they draw their pensions again. I do not think it is beyond the wit of the Minister of Health to devise something that will meet the needs of public opinion, for public opinion is in advance of this House on this question. In no constituency, with no audience, will there be found any opposition to the payment of adequate pensions to those who are in the evening of their years. One can hardly help feeling that in times like these we want writers like Dickens, we want poets like


Tom Hood, we want a new "Song of the Shirt":
Oh, God! that bread should be so dear, And flesh and blood so cheap!
We owe something to those people, for in their day and generation they have produced the wealth that enables us to live at the standard at which we do live. That is a duty which I hope we shall recognise as an obligation of honour, questioning not whether we can afford to do it but whether we can afford not to do it.

Mr. Murray: I think that everyone in this House wants to do justice to the aged people of this country. I feel that everybody in this House is satisfied that the allowance made to the aged people is a subsistence allowance. I do not think anyone, in any part of the House, would say that the old people can live in luxury on what they receive. Since this House last debated pensions, I have been very interested in what has happened. It has been stated several times to-day that the amount given is in-sufficient for the old people to live on in comfort. I have seen that, because of certain Regulations passed by this House, old people are not allowed even to remain on their past standard of living, but have in some degree had their standard reduced. Many are now compelled to buy their coal from the colliery companies and to pay 26s. a ton for it whereas in the past they received it from their sons or sons-in-law or friends working at the collieries. For a number of years it has been the practice in Durham for young men employed in the industry to save the coal which they receive and give it to the old people. The young man may now get from the colliery company 13s. 6d. a ton, but what does that mean to the old people? Out of their old age pensions they must pay for their coal. Thousands of them in the County of Durham have been affected by that Regulation. I know that there is a scarcity of coal, and that the Minister has to do everything possible to save coal; but these old people have had a penalty imposed upon them which should never have been imposed upon them. I appeal to the Minister to take this extra hardship into account. Many of these old people have had the good fortune to obtain aged miners' homes, with a home free, light free and coal free, but others have not had that fortune. The younger generation has sought to help those old people by saving coal for them

out of their own accumulations. I wanted to show that the standard of life of the old people has not been static but in this case has been reduced, and that something ought to be done to help these veterans of industry to live in comfort and decency.

Major Thorneyeroft: I rise to intervene in this Debate for a few moments only in response to the invitation which was extended by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) to Members on this side to give their views as to the way in which this very much discussed matter of supplementary pensions ought to be approached. I would like to say how much I agree with the speech of the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) when he said that what was wrong with our social services was the patch-work way in which they have grown up. He said that they have presented a problem for sociologists; they have certainly presented a problem to Members of Parliament who try to master the intricacies of these various questions. That brings me to the first point that I wish to make. The Minister is to be congratulated on his intention to codify and simplify these Regulations. It will be a help to Members of Parliament, but it will be also a help to the recipients of these pensions. I have spoken to a number of people—as we all have in our constituencies—on these subjects, and I am sure that very large numbers of them do not know from day to day what they are going to get or to what they are entitled. They are, some of them, afraid almost to accept a supplementary pension because they see that somebody was prosecuted in the police court for taking too much. All that is because of the extraordinary complications of these Regulations. I do congratulate the Minister on his expressed determination to try and put that right.
Apart from the question of simplicity, there are certain other aspects of pensions with which I wish to deal very briefly. The first requirement of the pension is that it should be adequate, and the second necessity is that we should be able to afford to pay it. I apologise to hon. Members opposite for being so mundane as to refer to this matter, but I cannot discuss the matter in too airy a mariner. The question of how we can find money for pensions has to be faced. Adequacy is not paying as much as we would like to pay; it is paying sufficient to enable these


people to get along on it. At the present moment the situation in which we find ourselves is that the Government are pledged to a flat-rate increase. I think that on an Adjournment Debate, even pressure or encouragement to get on with the job would almost be out of Order, but that is the situation in which we find ourselves. The proposal to-day, as I understand the hon. Member for Leigh, is that an interim measure to bring the pension up to £1 a week should be brought forward by the Government forthwith. That is on the face of it an attractive proposition. It is certainly an attractive proposition to the old age pensioners, but I would observe that it is a proposal that goes further than what Sir Wm. Beveridge considered was adequate and could be introduced in 20 years' time.

Mr. Tinker: Sir William Beveridge based his plan on the fact that persons would be able to have certain savings of their own by 1965, and the pension coming along would help the savings they already had. He did not lay it down as a basis upon which they should live in 1965.

Major Thorneycroft: I always treat what the hon. Member for Leigh says on these matters with great respect, but I cannot accept that proposition. Sir William Beveridge went into the matter with considerable trouble and had an expert committee sitting to decide what were subsistence rates, and he arrived at a figure. What the hon. Member for Leigh is now suggesting—as he is entitled to do, and there is no reason why he should not—is that as an interim measure, more should be paid to the old age pensioners who are on supplementary pension than what Sir William Beveridge suggested. While he is entitled to make that suggestion, we do not want to treat the Beveridge Report with contempt in that respect. We must consider very carefully whether Sir William Beveridge was perhaps not right in saying that the amount was as he stated in his Report. That is the first thing I want to say.
The second thing I want to say is that while it may be remarkable that the hon. Member has made a proposal which differs from the Beveridge proposal, it is still more remarkable that the proposal should be supported by the suggestion—not made

by him but by other hon. Members opposite—that because we are spending £15,000,00 a day on the war, therefore, we can afford to pay these high pensions after the war. It is time that we stopped saying this sort of thing. I do not think it is fair to people outside this House, and I do not believe it bears the slightest relation to the facts of the case. Let us face this fact. These supplementary pensions are going to be paid for, as all other social reforms are paid for, out of taxation, and that taxation is going to come, not from the small section of rich people, but out of the wage packets of the wage-earners in this country. No particular party and no particular Member of Parliament has any particular right to say that he speaks for the wage-earners more than any other, and I make no claim about that. But I do talk to wageearners—as other hon. Members do—and particularly to the young and the married wage-earners in my constituency. They do not want to be mean about the thing. They realise that they have to pay. They want social reform as much as anybody else. If you could get a proposal a little better than the Beveridge proposal with regard to widows, they would be prepared to find a little more each week out of their wage packets, but there is a definite limit to the amount of money which the State can take out of the wage packet and just leave a little to the wage-earner himself to spend in his own way. The young wage-earners, the married ones and those bringing up young children have a very heavy responsibility. It is the duty of Members of this House to see that too much money is not taken away from them. That is all I have to say on that subject, but I hope that we shall riot approach these matters in a parsimonious manner or in a niggardly way. We can be confident about the future, but the more confident we are, the bolder we are with our schemes of social reforms, the more necessary it is that on each individual reform we should watch closely to safeguard the small taxpayers, who are ever increasing in numbers in this country.

Mr. George Griffiths: I am sorry that I was out of the House when the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) was quoting me. I was across at the Pensions Ministry for a few minutes.


I want to say at once that the hon. Member has misquoted me entirely. I have never said in this House at any time that the pension was adequate.

Mr. Storey: May I correct the hon. Member at once? It was I who said that the pension was adequate. I quoted the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) to show that although he did not say that pensions were adequate, he did say that they brought happiness to thousands of old age pensioners. If a thing brings happiness to thousands of old age pensioners, I take it that it is justifiable for me to say that it is adequate.

Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased that we have cleared up that matter. The hon. Member for Sunderland and myself are now, from that standpoint, poles apart. He said that certain: things bring happiness. I would like to ask the hon. Member whether, if he himself was placed in the position of only receiving £2 for himself and his wife, he would think that it was adequate. That is a pointed question to the hon. Member for Sunderland.

Mr. Storey: I can say quite definitely to the hon. Member that if my circumstances were such that I had to ask taxpayers to help to keep me, I and my wife would be prepared to do our best on £2 a week without grumbling.

Mr. Griffiths: And the hon. Member would think that it was adequate?

Mr. Storey: It would not be adequate for all we would like to do, but it would be adequate for all that we would like to ask the taxpayer to do for us.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not want to go any further with this dialogue, but instead of taking bits out of what an hon. Member had said, it would have been as well to quote the speech entirely. If hon. Members would read my speech of 29th July, 1942, before the Beveridge Report was published, they would find that I stated definitely that I wanted something for other people besides those who had got the pension. I was concerned not so much about those who were getting supplementary pensions as I was about those who were left out. I put the case of the widow strongly, and the widow is left out in this case. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sunderland will go to Sunderland and tell widows in his con-

stituency that they are not getting any chance at all in this business. I refer to the widows from 40 to 55 who only get 10s. pension. Will he tell these folk that that is adequate for them? These are the people whose case I was emphasising in my speech of 29th July, 1942.
The other people I laid emphasis upon were the thrifty people who up to now have not been able to get any supplementary pension because of the fact that they have been thrifty. That is the chief reason why they are not getting any addition. They have tried to be thrifty all along the line of life. They have perhaps saved £400, and the Government say to them, "You have £400 which you have saved. What have you done that for? Because you have been thrifty and saved money, you cannot get any additional pension." When the holiday season comes round I will go with the hon. Member for Sunderland and take the same platform. I have challenged him before, and I am prepared to do so again. I want to plead for the widows over 40 years of ago who have no children.
I want the Minister in his reply to answer one question. I have a widow in my town who has a boy. She is entitled to supplementary pension if she is not working, but she is working and earning something like £2 a week, and because of that—she still draws her 10s. a week and 5s. for the boy—she is not getting any supplementary pension. When the war is over there will be no work for this widow, because she is working in a certain industry which will not he required when the war is over. Her boy will then be over school age. I would like the Minister to tell me whether this widow, when she makes application for a pension when her boy has turned 14, will be entitled to the supplementary pension which she would be entitled to to-day if she was not working. After all, the widows over 40 years of age are considered by the Navy, Army and Air Force, and I would ask the Minister to give consideration to the thousands of widows who have had children who are not now of school age. I have some of these widows in my division, and I have had to say to them, "There is nothing for you." That is very hard. I hope the Minister will see that these widows are brought within the range of supplementary pensions in any new scheme which is


brought forward. I do not desire to go any further except to say that I hope to have a trip to Sunderland soon.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) took the right course in this Debate in impressing upon the Minister the inadequacy of supplementary pensions, an issue which was disputed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). I want to make one or two suggestions to the Minister. I was privileged on Monday last to attend a gathering of about 300 old age pensioners at Carcroft, a little village in my division, in Yorkshire. These people had collected sums of money to enable them to make gifts of 10s. a week to old age pensioners who were actually not at work, the main reason for this fund being that they should be able to enjoy their holidays at home. I was impressed by some of the observations of these old folk. They said to me, "Holidays at home are not really new to us; we have had to spend our holidays at home for generations; we have never been able to afford to go anywhere." So, these people were grateful for the gifts of 10s. because they provided a measure of comfort which we are discussing all too glibly in Debates like these. I am not thinking of happiness or comfort in the shape of roundabouts or other such attractions in connection with holidays at home, but of the little things which affect the normal everyday life of a working family.
We have been promised certain legislation when we come back after the Recess. I do not think the Minister of Health will be doing the right thing if he worries about statistics and the cost-of-living figure and all these other issues while we are away and then comes back to us with a long statement and a White Paper which mean nothing. If he will go into the homes of these old age pensioners and their pantries, he will find that we have a false cost-of-living figure. Everybody knows it. During the Recess the Minister should go into as many old age pensioners' homes in as many counties as possible and hold with them such conversations as I had last Monday. At the gathering I attended many of the old people were ragged, tattered and torn, or their clothes were patched. I went into some of their bedrooms to see the conditions in which they are living now owing

to deterioration and general usage of their goods and chattels. These people indicated that the supplementary pension was insufficient to provide all the things they would like to buy. I said to some of them, "But you can obtain bed linen," and I was asked, "Have you met some of the inspectors who conduct the inquiries?" I do not want to suggest that the people inquiring for the Ministry are horrible people, but their inquisition is of such a kind that our people in the mining villages do not like to be put through the hoop, as they call it, when answering the innumerable questions that are asked of them when they wish to obtain an extra pair of blankets, a new suit or anything else which they normally require.
However, I want to come to the fundamental question of the cost-of-living figure, which I hope will be examined by the Minister during the Recess. If the Minister says that the cost-of-living figure has gone up by only 30 points, I say to him, "It is not true." An old age pensioner can have only two ounces of tea, four ounces of bacon and two ounces of butter, all controlled in price and quantity. I will not go through the whole dietary, but not many shillings a week are spent on these controlled and rationed commodities. That is not the whole story. If these old people want to buy a lettuce, something for a fresh salad—and Lord Woolton has said that we must become more and more vegetarian—they cannot afford it out of their meagre supplementary pensions. They cannot afford, either, the tasty bits and the essential commodities which they must have to keep body and soul together. They cannot afford to buy tomatoes at is. 6d. a pound, windfall apples at 10d. a pound, or cabbages at 3d. or 4d. each, which, before the war, were a penny. They cannot afford to buy fruit. They do not raise any question about strawberries, raspberries or cherries. They never think in those terms.
I know that the Minister can beat me hollow at quoting the Scriptures. For every quotation I chose to make he could quote to times as many to cancel out my argument. But I do not wish to argue on sentimental grounds. I wish to raise this matter in relation to the points adduced by Sir William Beveridge. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) asked one of my hon. Friends whether he disputed Sir William Beveridge's


figures. I will make bold to say that I challenge Sir William's assessment about the cost of living. I say that no old age pensioner can possibly live on 20s. a week to-day and enjoy, not luxury commodities, the normal essential foodstuffs. No old age pensioner's position compares with that of the average weekly wage-earner who has, Over the war years, had various increases of salary.
There is a very urgent need for the Minister to inquire into the needs of these old folk. He must set aside statistics and all the other things that are provided for him, because the cost-of-living figure is established on the 1908 basis and is false. If the Minister will only look at what is actually happening to these old people, how their condition is deteriorating, if he will go into their pantries and look at their dietary and see how much it takes to provide for their normal needs, he will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that each old age pensioner should receive 20s. a week, apart from the rent. Knowing the Minister and the fairness he usually displays in most matters he presents to us, I do not think he will disagree. If he will examine this vital issue and the falsity of all the figures used by us and even by people like Sir Wm. Beveridge, other economists and Cabinet Ministers who try to tell us, as they often do, that there is no reason to increase the wages of most of the workers in this country, he will realise that it is old age pensioners who need an increase of supplementary pensions. I hope the Minister will come forward after the Recess with a big increase.

Mr. Foster: I would not have risen in this Debate had it not been for the statements made by two hon. Members who spoke from the other side of the House. Each hon. Member said that he was responding to the invitation given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I am not speaking on this matter at my hon. Friend's invitation; I do so because I feel with sincerity that the amount of the supplementary pension is totally inadequate. I do not think there is a Member in the House who would try to prove that the present supplementary pensions are adequate—not even the Minister himself. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mi. Storey) asserted that they were adequate, but adduced no evidence whatever to

support his assertion. He met the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) by saying that if the additional cost had to come from other wage-earners, pensioners would be satisfied to live on £2a week. What a condemnation of our social system, when an hon. Member argues that an old age pensioner will try to live on £2 a week for himself and wife provided he is not taking something from someone else who is only receiving just
over £2 a week. No sane man in the House or out of it will say that two people can live on £2 a week and feed themselves as they should be fed and have a home in which they can enjoy all the things that should be in a home.
The whole of the arguments of hon. Members opposite have been based upon the good things in the White Paper, such as disregard of savings, which would enable some pensioners to get an increase. But it is not only those who have savings who are feeling the pinch. There are thousands of old age pensioners who have never had an adequate wage during the whole of their working life and have never been able to save and have some hundreds of pounds in the bank. If you mentioned to some whom I know that Parliament had been considering disregarding £400, the value of the house and so on, they would have a fit because they have never known what it is to have£20. They have the cemetery bookmaker—that is the insurance agent—corning round every Friday night and taking the 3d. or 6d. that they must pay to ensure a decent burial. Their whole lives are in credit with someone. They have to pawn themselves, body and soul, in order that, when they reach old age, they can have something that they can rely on. Immediately a child is born a penny a week is paid, and, if it dies, they can buy a coffin and pay for a coach to go to the cemetery. I agree with disregarding means from the standpoint of those who have been able to save, but there are thousands who have no savings at all. No argument can be adduced by the Minister or anyone else to justify the statement that £2 a week for two people is adequate.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) said it would not be fair or reasonable to increase supplementary pensions, because the cost would be deducted from


other wage-earners or would be paid in taxes. I have yet to find a wage-earner who would object to paying a little extra in order that the old people might have a comfortable life. No one would deny that one of the first charges on the State should be the care of the old people. There is another class besides the working class, who own and run industry on the basis of profit, and they ought to make a much more substantial contribution towards old age pensions. There is also the point that conditions are never static. Our capacity to produce is constantly evolving and accelerating by the invention and genius of our race, which are so great that, when the war is over, the cost of providing decent and fair old age pensions will be very insignificant when related to our capacity to produce.
Speeches have been made on both sides of the House on other questions, such as the planning which is to be done, social security, the planning of our cities and industry, the building of houses, and generally the planning of the post-war world; and it has been argued that all these schemes will depend on our capacity to produce after the war and that our capacity to produce will be so great that we shall be able to create a far better and happier world. Therefore, the assertion that these pensions are adequate has not been proved. The arguments are all the other way. The other assertion which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford, that the working classes would object to providing for our old people—

Major Thorneycroft: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I did not speak about the working class objecting. I said that they would be the last people to be mean about a matter of this kind. All I did was to plead with hon. Members opposite to stop using an argument based on the fact that we were spending £15,000,000 a day on the war, and I said that you must leave the young working man with something to spend on his own account.

Mr. Foster: I do not think I have misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He definitely made the assertion that the wage-earner would take exception to having taken from his wage packet a contribution to supplement old

age pensions. I submit that the wage-earners would not object to paying something extra to do that. I would appeal to the Government to consider seriously during the Recess what has been said in the House to-day with a view to supplementary pensions being increased. The responsibility for seeing that pensions are adequate is not the responsibility of the working class only but is the responsibility of every class in society.

Mr. Leslie: I hope that the appeals by hon. Members to the Government will be taken to heart and that during the Recess the Minister will consider this matter so that a more adequate pension can be granted. No one can deny that the cost of living has hit old age pensioners very hard. Even the price of tobacco is beyond the means of many old men. The other day I asked the Chancellor whether he would follow the example of the Isle of Man and concede 1s. a week to old age pensioners for tobacco. He said that he could not make a concession of that kind. To my surprise, within the next few days I received a number of letters from old men who since the tax on tobacco had been increased had not been able to have the little solace of a pipe of tobacco. A concession has been made in regard to savings up to £400, and that is good so far as it does not penalise thrift. It must be borne in mind, however, that many thousands of these old people never had a chance during their earlier life to save. Many of them had to rear families on very low wages, and other have been handicapped by sickness in the family. These old people cannot possibly exist on their meagre pensions. It is also true to say that old folk in the past have contributed their quota to the prosperity of this country. Therefore, let us not forget them in the evening of their lives. The least we can do is to concede sufficient to enable them to spend their remaining years in comparative comfort.

Mr. Burke: I want to put a point to the Minister for his consideration. I would really like to make a plea for an increase in the basic rates, but I am afraid that that would be out of Order. We have from time to time discussions on the Regulations, about the adequacy of the supplementary grants, and about the investigations and whether they are fair, just and kindly. I am wondering whether


the Minister would consider the point to without the necessity for all these whether all these Debates about the inquiries, which are resented even if they which are resented even if they are done in the most careful way, could not be cut out and a new method considered. Everybody realizes that the amount that are paid to old age pensioners, whether they are just the basic rate or the basic rate plus supplementation are not sufficient. We have only to have regard to the inquiry made by Sir William Beveridge. It was very wide spread and covered all classes. Sir William had at his disposal the inquiry that were made by Liverpool university, Manchester University and Rowntree, of York, and he came to the significant conclusion that the need for a scheme of social insurance is based on the fact that the working-class have no means of providing for any contingency, whether it is marriage, the birth of a child, death or the starting of a home. They have not sufficient background or sufficient reserves and no roots in society to enable them to plan and look ahead
Therefore, I am not impressed by the raising of the£300 savings to £400 or the decision that 6d instead of 1s shall be regarded as interest on £25. the mass of the old age pensioners are not troubled with £40, let alone £400. They do not realize that 6d. on £25 is an impossible rate for them to expect. Most of them have not got it, and they know nothing about these percentages. The fundamental consideration is not the class of people with savings but the ordinary old age pensioner, who Beveridge discovered was in such large number, who had no resources and nothing to fall back upon. That class is not being adequately provided for. We are trying to provide for him and the Government have tried to do so by making repeated alterations in the regulations and in the supplementations I understand that after the recess there will be some codifying of the Regulations. That will be of some advantages if they are made simpler, so that people can find their way through them quickly, because it is a painful job now to try to find out how much anyone is entitled to; but may I ask the Minister to give consideration to this point: Instead of bothering about the codifying of all these Regulations why should he not wipe them out altogether, and put things on a decent basic, so that people can find out what they are entitled

to without the necessity for all these inquiries?

Mr. Martin: At are done in the most careful way, could this late hour in the Debate I do not want to say anything on the main question, which has been adequately covered by my hon. Friends, but I should like to emphasise something said by my hon. Friend, but I should like to emphasise something said by my hon. Friends the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) and others about the unto have regard to the inquiry made by Sir reality of the cost-of-living figures as far William old age pensioners are concerned. In my division last winter the coal supplied to local merchants was very inferior in quality. If you have an income of £5 or £10 a week, the loss of 25 or 30 per cent. in the fuel value of the coal you are burning in the grate is not a very important matter, but if you are living very working close to the subsistence line, which is the case with most old age pensioners, such a loss is very real Again, the ordinary household pot, pan or kettle is nowadays often much less durable than in peace-time. If your income leaves a little bit to met the contingency of the renewal of household articles, this is not such a very important matter, but anyone's income can only just be spaced out to meet every need such renewals serious.
The hon. Member for Doncaster spoke about food, and I will not recapitulate what he said, but I should like to emphasise, as a member of the Old Age Pensions Committee, that the food problem is a very real one to these old people to-day. What some of them need in addition to more generous allowances is a body friends. While I make no complaint as a whole of the staff of my right hon. Friend, the people who are sent down to examine these problems should be inspired with feeling that they need to be the friends of these old people at a time when these problems press so hardly upon them. They should feel that it is their responsibility not only to find out whether old age pensioner or the widow with a young family needs a particular thing, but find out what their troubles really are and set them on the best way to solving them. In that way old people might be saved the harassing job of searching all London, or all Manchester, or wherever it is, for the goods they want. The Minister might even consider whether there could not be an issue in kind to them. I know that this idea is not accept-


able to many of my hon. Friends, and I should cordially agree with them in normal times, but in present circumstances we have to be resilient and flexible in our methods, and it might help the old age pensioners if they could have visitors who would see that they got an issue of reliable goods in kind when their needs required them. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend, when considering this problem during the Recess, to consider a rise in the supplementary allowance and also the question of making the job of running the home rather easier for these members of the community, who are most vulnerable to present economic conditions.

Mr. McNeil: Like recent speakers I shall be very brief, and for the plain reason that there is nothing to be said on this subject which has not already been said from this side of the House, and, indeed, from all parts of the House. We are in the curious position that in recent Debates no Minister has dared to say that the present scales were either adequate or worked in such a way as to meet all anomalies, but despite these admissions we are still waiting for satisfactory action. My right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he was being attacked took refuge in saying that the Regulations were the will of the House and that he was subservient to democracy. I would not lend myself to say there is no more important problem than this, because that would plainly be hyperbole. The war and its corollories must have more importance for the House than this subject, but I do say to my right hon. Friend who pleaded democracy that no more human question has been before the House since the beginning of the war than this one, and I say also that if this were not war time adequate action would, be forced upon any Government. I suggest that politically it is something like trickery for the Government to depend upon the loyalty of the ordinary Member of Parliament in war time, to use it as a shield when we ask them to address themselves to such a problem as this.
Therefore, like every other speaker I hope that when we return the Government will honestly address themselves to the various problems connected with pensions. I would make it plain that my view, and I see no reason to change it,

has been that eventually we shall have to increase the basic rates and naturally we shall also have to increase the contributions. I never made an easier or more confident prediction in my life than that eventually the Goverment will be forced to do that. No one pretends that the Government are in an easy position, no one pretends that they have not a host of problems, but I think those problems will not grow easier with delay. They will be forced to tackle this problem eventually in the fashion I have suggested, and in many parts of the country people think they should do it now. I say to my right hon. Friend who is not now present but who is so confident about democracy that no one knows better than he that if this were a question which could be considered, apart from the war, and administratively it can be taken apart from the war, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) argued earlier, there is not a working-class constituency in which anyone would be elected who took refuge in the present position of the Government.
I want to point only to one anomaly consequent upon the present Regulations. Naturally, each succeeding set of Regulations will necessitate anomalies. I would be the last to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is blameworthy. In this kind of patchwork quilt system we always shall have anomalies, which is another reason why we should address ourselves to the basic social problem. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the man on the £400 non-qualifying capital basis, is being badly treated. I suggest that when we reduced the disregard from is. to 6d. for £25, we should have raised the non-qualifying disregard to somewhere around £600. In these circumstances the man with the non-qualifying £400 is going to be left, on the Board's notional scale, with a net income of 17s. per week, whereas if we had raised it to £600, it would be, on the notional scale, an income of 22s., which, while not adequate, would at any rate be commensurate with the present supplementary scale.
While I make that plea, I would conclude by joining in what someone said earlier, that we cannot expect justice or satisfaction, even from a super-Minister, so long as he is burdened with the existing Regulations. I have not any hope—I say so quite frankly—that we shall get an


attempt by the Government to erect a basically equal system. I am told that the Board are meeting—I am certain they are meeting—to add another patch to the scheme. I hope it will be a more adequate supplementation for the old age pensioner, but that is a plea almost of despair. What we want, what logic suggests we need and what most of the pensioners whose cases we argue are satisfied that they should have, is an increase of the basic pension. I know it is true that the Minister can quote figures, and I can meet the figures. I have never been afraid to say that you cannot have a system of insurance for nothing. The Minister can say with perfect justice that no matter on what figure you put the basic pension, there would be anomalies. "Anomalies" is the wrong word. There will always be the abnormal case to which the Board will have to address themselves. My experience, and more particularly my recent experience, is that the officials of the Board employ every available discretion. That is not an argument for the Minister. It is an argument for this side of the House, because it is evidence that the scales are inadequate. If it is true that no matter what basic pension we allowed there would still be abnormal cases, it is reasonable to suggest that we should reduce these to the lowest figure possible. That, of course, will be done by raising the basic figure that we can put as an insurable proposition.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Brooke: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, I thought I might intervene at this stage, but I am quite willing to give way, by leave of the House.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the Minister, because I have been listening with keen interest to a great part of the two Debates which we have had to-day. It is a very human subject that we have been discussing, and it is right that the House should spend time upon it. It is obvious to all of us that we have not yet reached a final and satisfactory position as regards old age pensions. I am glad that the Regulations are to be codified, which, I take it, will mean simplifying and smoothing them out. Whether any substantial changes will come from that I do not know, but I

am in agreement with hon. Members that it is desirable that the old people should be sure where they are. It is hard enough now for Members of this House to know where they are with all the Regulations regarding supplementary pensions, as they stand; how much harder must it be for many of the recipients.
The deepest impression that the Debate has made upon me is the desirability of the House being informed as early as possible of the Government's final decisions on the Beveridge proposals regarding this matter, of pensions. It seems to me that we can discuss old age and other pensions, day after day, at length, but with a certain uselessness all the time that we know the Government are examining these matters behind the scenes in greater detail and with greater precision than we can possibly do now in this House. We are not yet aware of the Government's full intentions, but I look forward to a thorough Debate on the subject when we have a White Paper or other considered statement from the Government to which we can really apply our minds.
Many hon. Members have for part of the time been discussing the position of the old age pensioner who has no other resources, and for part of the time the position of the pensioner who has other resources. It is the latter class of person who is most interested in an increase of the basic pension. One hon. Member remarked a few minutes ago that the vast majority of recipients of old age pension had no other resources, but that is not the case. Am I not right in saying that in his report Sir William Beveridge dwelt on the fact that only about one-third of all the pensioners received supplementary pension? In other words, two-thirds had some other resources, which stopped them either from putting forward, or from making good, a claim for supplementary pension.

Mr. James Griffiths: I would like to get this point clear. The hon. Member has quoted, of course, quite accurate figures but those figures of old age pensioners would not apply to supplementary pensions. The figure of over-all pensioners included 700,000 who were still at work and whose resources were their wages.

Mr. Tinker: There were over 1,000,000 who have no other resources.

Mr. Brooke: All that only goes to prove what I said before—how much more satisfactory it will be when we can discuss these matters on a definite statement of ascertained facts and an equally definite statement of the Government's intentions. In my own constituency there are still a number of recipients of old age pension living in conditions of considerable hardship. I do not agree with the hon. Member who argued that old age pensioners are worse off, generally than they were three or four years ago. I am sure that is not true. Broadly speaking, old age pensioners have reason to be grateful to this present Parliament.
We have to address ourselves also to the long-term aspects of the matter. We know that there are certain shortcomings and difficulties in the present arrangements. We have tentative proposals put forward by Sir William Beveridge. We have alternative proposals put forward in general terms by the Government, which we understand are to be worked out and presented in greater detail. We know for an inescapable fact that the number of old people in this country will rise, and however much anybody on the other side of the House may say that money does not matter, it is quite clear that the rise in the number of pensioners means not only that the financial weight of existing pensions will grow heavier and heavier, even though we make no change in the scale or arrangements, but also that every upward change we make will cost a considerable amount of extra money. I think I am right in quoting Sir William Beveridge as saying that in 20 years' time when there will be 8,000,000 old people in this country the cost of every is. a week we pay by way of old age pension will amount in total to £20,000,000 a year, a very considerable figure.
None of us as Members of Parliament can run away from facts like this. It is very necessary that the people in the country, not only we in the House who are, perhaps, more familiar with the details, should have the essential facts in order to weigh up what we want in this. I certainly do not agree with any suggestion that working class people are not willing to pay for old age pensions. On the contrary, all the people of this country are willing to do their snare to make sure that people who have worked honestly throughout their lives shall be reasonably

looked after in old age. We have to measure what that will cost, and we have to put that against our resources.
We know that out of the total present income left in the hands of the people of this country, after taxes have been paid, four-fifths is in the hands of those with an income of less than £10 a week. Only one-thirtieth of the total income that remains after taxation is in the hands of people with over £2,000 a year. That supports what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) said, that if there is to be substantial extra expenditure on old age pensions the greater part of that money will have to be found by the working class people of this country. They should realise that. They should have before them a factual statement from the Government as to what it will cost, in terms of the kind of taxes which they like everyone else will in future have to pay. In that way it seems to me they can advise us and can guide us, here in this Parliament assembled, as to the price they think it reasonable for the country, which means themselves, to pay for the future standard of old age pensions—of basic old age pensions and of supplementary pensions—which we should establish.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: We have come to the end of a long day. The Minister has been very patient, and I appreciate very much his giving way after he had risen. I wish to associate myself now in these last few words with what has been said from this side of the House. But what I have noticed particularly today has been the contrast as against the great day we had some time ago, after we had in this House first induced the Minister of Pensions to withdraw his Bill temporarily, when we discussed the Royal Warrant and were able to increase the pensions under the new Warrant that is to be. There is a tremendous difference in the atmosphere of this House to-day compared with then, which I deplore. On that occasion we were united as a House, both sides of the House were united for an increase in the pensions of those who made the sacrifice in this war. To-day it seems that there is such a half-hearted tone from the other side of the House Behind the Minister there seems to be such a half-hearted support. We are hearing so much about the inability to meet the cost, not exactly a reluctance to meet the


cost, but about whether the working class will be able to meet the cost.
We want to say from this side of the House that our people in the country are fundamentally behind us in the urge for an increase in the supplementary pensions for old age pensioners. It is only more or less quiet in the House because they believed that at this stage when we were discussing this question of the widows there was a possibility that there would be an announcement that there was to be an increase in the supplementary pensions for the old age pensioners. I will say that not one Member who has spoken on the other side of the House has justified the scales. They agree that the scales are inadequate, that it would be most difficult to eke out a living with the scales at present being paid. The Minister has been congratulated by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) and by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). He has been congratulated because the Regulations are to be codified and simplified. What a present we are handing to the old age pensioners. What a present we are handing to them, that we are going to simplify the rules, that we are going to codify them so that they can clearly understand what they mean.

Mr. Brooke: In what I said I was actually taking up and supporting a remark made by one of the hon. Member's own party at an earlier stage in the proceedings. I did not think it necessary to go over all the changes made in these Regulations, because I had expressed my approval of several of them when the Bill which enacted them was before the House a month or two ago.

Mr. Taylor: What I was trying to say that you can codify and simplify as much as you like; that is not what the old people want. They do not live on cod. What they are seeking and what they are waiting for is an increase in the supplementary pensions which will enable them to live a little better, not well, but a little better. When I was in the pit we had a pay note that was a perfect illustration of codification and simplification, but there was no satisfaction to me if I happened to be on the minimum wage and had only it to take home.
As for the Assistance Board, I never hear a complaint about them now. They

are looked upon more or less as the friend of our people. That is since the Minister of Health left the Ministry of Labour. There has been a fundamental change since he left. It may be a coincidence, of course, but I certainly never hear a corn-plaint about the conduct of the investigations that go on now. I do not think the Minister will mind what I say, because he is very thick-skinned. I shall be most surprised if, after all our pleading, we get anything from him. I think, in fact, that we haw, made a mistake in pleading for supplementary pensions. We should have rolled up our sleeves, as we did over war pensions, and clone less pleading. If there is not a definite promise of something when we come back after the Recess, we shall have to stop pleading; and I expect we shall get the assistance of hon. Members opposite in just as good a cause as the other, the cause of the old people. When we were discussing increased pensions for war widows and for men who had been injured in the war, we did not ask where the money would come from. It is to our credit that we never said anything about that. There is nothing to prevent us from being as generous to the people who bred the men who are fighting in Sicily and who have knocked Mussolini off his perch, and who will do the same for Hitler.
We have heard a lot about man-power. There has been a considerable change in regard to investigations by the Assistance Board, but the Minister can pass this suggestion on to the Minister of Labour. We are all trying to find ways of meeting the man-power problem. The investigators used to go round every month inquiring whether there had been any change in circumstances. Then the interval was three months. Now it is about six months, and I understand that soon it will be 12 months. Why not make it two or three years, or do away with the inquiries altogether? Then you will get any amount of good men and women out of that Department. Can the Minister tell me how many are engaged in that work? If we can find young women there, instead of taking women of 50 into factories, it will be to the national advantage. I hope that the Minister will be able to say when we come back that we can expect an increase in the supplementary pensions and that some of these little niggling things will be abolished. Why should there be is. difference between a married man and his


wife who are both on pension and a married man and his wife who happen not to be on pension? Why should there be is difference for an old age pensioner and his daughter who is keeping and looking after the old man? Nobody can imagine that that 1s, represents a lower cost of living or a lessened demand. If some of these things are swept away, it will give great satisfaction. We felt thwarted when we got the 2s. 6d.—we felt grateful, but we expected more—and to-day we are disappointed again because we expected more.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brawn): I have been at a loss, in the light of what has happened in recent years, and especially since the war started, to understand the note of pessimism in so many of the speeches to-day. One would imagine that little or nothing had been done about this issue. That is not so. One of the biggest changes made in old age pensions has been the introduction of supplementary pensions. [Interruption.] I did not interrupt my hon. Friend, and I hope he will not interrupt me. In their sincere desire, which is shared in every part of the House—it is not the preserve of any one party—to help the old folk, hon. Members opposite are sometimes inclined to leave out factors which have to be weighed in forming a fair judgment. A good deal has been done. It is not unworthy of remark that, although we are fighting a great war, we have done several things about this matter, and one of them is that which we are discussing to-day. We have introduced supplementary pensions.
Let me put this on record. A million and a quarter of our old age pensioners would be advantaged if an increase were made in supplementary pensions. There are at the moment between 3,600,000 and 3,700,000 old age pensioners, of whom 720,000 are in full work. So there are three sections of old age pensioners. Old age pensioners are not all alike; they are very different in life, outlook and circumstances. There are the 720,000 in full work; the 1,250,000 whose needs are such that they have, since the introduction of supplementary pensions by this Government in this war, applied for and received supplementary pensions: and

the balance who have made no application—I will not put it higher than this but prima facie because they do not need supplementary pensions—I only say prima facie. That has been a fact since the introduction of supplementary pensions. From August, 1940, to March, 1943, £80,000,000 has been paid to the supplementary pensioners of this country. That includes no money for administration costs at all; it is the sum paid out in that two and a half years. Let the House note that the estimate for this current year, from March, 1943, to March, 1944, for supplementary pensions is £43,250,000. So when hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) talk about a funeral march, the metaphor really is not apt. They do not do justice to this House and to the Government on the things which have been achieved. This is not to prejudge the future at all, but if people are going to talk about the matter, they should digest all the facts, and not merely some of them. So much has been said about these people that this fact and this estimate ought to go on record, so that the country may understand that, not only those who talk about old age pensions, but the whole House and the Government have been much concerned about the problem.
There is another issue. Although I cannot deal with it except incidentally, as have other hon. Members, it is not true to say that the Government have no regard to the major problem. On the contrary, it was this Government that appointed Sir William Beveridge with the idea of surveying the whole of the social and allied services so that they might come to the right conclusions. My hon. Friend is a little unfair when he makes comparisons about the atmosphere in the recent Debate on war pensions and the atmosphere to-day. I feel that he fails wholly because of this one fact. That there is a lack of sympathy with the old age pensioners, or a lack of desire to do the best for them or any question of thickness of hides, are unworthy suggestions to be made across the House from one Member to another or from a Member to a Minister. It is easy to say that when you have no responsibility for the Government. Members do not want, when the next step is taken about old


age pensions, to do anything but the right thing; they do not want to do the wrong thing the next time.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: In the meantime, until the right thing is done, are the wrong conditions to continue?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member made his speech in his own way, and I will make mine in my own way. I am making two points, that it is not right to lead the country into supposing that the Government and this House have been without regard to the need of old age pensioners, and I can prove it by the facts. I made this point, that by the very setting-up and appointment of Sir William Beveridge and his Committee to survey the whole field the Government have taken file view that it has been a matter of patchwork. It is because the patchwork arises from life and not from theory that the difficulty arises. Let me recall the memories of hon. Members to the beginings, not of old age pensions, because that was a very simple thing, but of the insurance services. What was the original idea? It was to have a very simple, straightforward structure. What happened? The moment that that was raised in this House Members rose up in every quarter of the House and said that this simple, straightforward structure did not deal with the merchant seamen, with people with large families, and with A, B, C, D, E, F, a whole category of special and difficult cases put by Members because they had been to their constituencies and found that the simple and straightforward thing was not easy. It is because of that that we have had addition to addition. Every time the House has brought hard cases, successive Government of all parties have tried to meet the hard cases, and in meeting them they had to make new and more complicated Regulations.
I beg the House to forgive me a moment, because this has a very close bearing on what I am now going to say. It is hard not merely for old age pensioners and Members but for Ministers to interpret these matters. I want to issue a word of warning. It is true that the Assistance Board desires to codify and simplify, and no one will echo that desire more than Ministers on the Treasury Bench and welcome the decision that has been made, but I am bound to point out that the codification and simplification of the

Regulations in themselves must be related to the conditions of life to which the Acts of Parliament are applied. If Members arc thinking in terms of codification, I beg them not to be too disappointed if things do not work out quite as simply as they hope. I give this word of warning so that it may not be laid against me later on. There are some things which cannot be put in plain Bible English. Some have to be translated into Welsh. I am giving this word of warning, because it will be a great advantage to everybody concerned to have the codification and simplification applied. But it cannot be a simple matter. It is an expert job. If you are to act and cover the needs of the special cases put to Parliament in Debate after Debate, you have to define your Regulations in terms of law and be accurate in your definitions. So far the House has welcomed that fact.
There are a number of other things that arise out of the very interesting speeches in this Debate. The first is that the statutory duty to propose alterations in the Regulations does not lie with the Government. It lies with the Assistance Board. Parliament has willed that, and until Parliament changes its mind about it and does something different, the statutory position is that responsibility for proposing any alteration in the Regulations to keep them up to date has been placed upon the Assistance Board. In the words of Section 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, as applied to the supplementary pensions scheme, the Assistance Board have the duty of putting forward draft Regulations "from time to time as the occasion may require." What has arisen from this Debate? I shall take great care that the Board are informed of the opinion of the House and that there is a wide measure of dissatisfaction. It will have noted that fact, but it will have to do more than that. It will consider carefully what has been said here, and it will make its own comparisons when proposals are under discussion. It will have to ask itself how the scales proposed compare, for example, with those set out in the Beveridge Report. In the Beveridge Report we find a figure of 24s. for a single man paying a rent of 6s. 6d., which stands side by side with the Board's figure of 22s. with a rent of 5s., and 40s. for a married couple paying a rent of 10s. as compared with 37s. on a rent of 6s. All these and many other matters will have to be considered before a satisfactory and


reasonably simple scheme can be produced.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I gather that the Board in considering the suggestions put forward will have to give consideration to the figures in the Beveridge Report. We have heard of the same point being raised on another matter, that of workmen's compensation. We are entitled to know whether the Assistance Board and everybody who considers the social services are to be bound by the Beveridge Report. We are entitled to ask, Is that a clear indication that the Government intend to implement it?

Mr. Brown: The answer to that was given quite plainly by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in the Debate on that matter. I would like to quote a short passage from my right hon. Friend's speech:
The Government definitely prefer a different approach. They would prefer fixed contributions and benefits now. It may be that the initial pension may be somewhat higher than that recommended in the Beveridge Report, having regard to the existing assistance grants, and to the proposed benefits for invalidity and unemployment. It might be thought that the initial pension benefits proposed in the Report are on the low side. The Government would prefer a fixed contribution for a fixed benefit, even if benefits are somewhat higher than those proposed in the Report. If Parliament later liked to decide—as they might do—to give increased pensions, then, in the view of the Government, the matter should be reopened and an increased pension should be granted with the increased rates of contribution.
A little later in my right hon. Friend's speech, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who asked whether the Government contemplated an immediate increase in old age pensions, by right hon. Friend said:
I was not saying anything about that; I was talking about the Beveridge Report, which recommends a certain rate of pension, that rate to be increased over 20 years. What I indicated was that the Government prefer a definite rate of pension and a definite contribution, even if that initial rate is somewhat higher than that recommended under the Beveridge Scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1943; cols. 1672–73, Vol. 386.]

Mr. J. Griffiths: Sir William Beveridge proposes 24s. and 40s. They are scales with which the Board have nothing to do because they are fixed basic scales. The Board have nothing to do with basic scales. The Assistance Board should be

asked to consider supplementary pensions and payments on the basis of need. They have nothing to do with the Beveridge proposals, and I say that with the greatest respect to the Board, as one who knows something about their original work, which, as the Minister knows, I did my best to overthrow at the time when he was not a Minister. Who gives the Assistance Board authority to judge this matter from the standpoint of the Beveridge Report?

Mr. Brown: I am not saying that. I am saying that this is one of the many things which the Board will have to take into consideration in doing their duty, which is mainly to meet the needs of those concerned.

Mr. Buchanan: Are we to take it that this is the position, that Sir William Beveridge, who was appointed for another purpose, is to determine the needs of the old age pensioner and the widow and her child? That is what the Minister is saying. He is saying that Beveridge should play some part in determining what are the needs of the great mass of the people of this country.

Mr. Brown: I have not said that. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have."] I have said the direct opposite. That is why I founded myself on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to the House during the Debate on the Beveridge Report.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The Minister has just stated that we must have regard to the Beveridge plan. He made that statement, and it is on record now.

Mr. Brown: If hon. Members will read what I said, they will see that I did not use the word "must." What I did say was that the Board would take into consideration all these things because what they are charged to do is to take account of the needs of those with whom they are concerned.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sorry to interrupt, but this is very important. The Assistance Board was set up under the Act of 1935. The basic Act has not been changed. The Board's problem was originally a problem for unemployment purposes. Their task was to recommend to the Government, the House and the country what unemployment allowances


should be paid to those whose unemployment benefit had become exhausted. They were to consider what was needed purely on the basis of need. The Board's only authority is the authority to decide what shall be paid as supplementation purely on the basis of need. The Assistance Board have nothing whatever to do with the Beveridge Report; it is none of their business to consider it or any of the Beveridge proposals in relation to their problem now.

Mr. Brown: I do not know what all the concern is about.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We know, all right.

Mr. Brown: Then the hon. Member knows a great deal more than I do, and perhaps after the Debate he will enlighten me about it. I pointed out that the Board would have regard to their duty. I said they would have to have regard to the whole series of views about subsistence which have been put forward from all quarters, including Sir William Beveridge, because it must be pointed out that the expert sub-committee set up under the chairmanship of Sir William Beveridge was charged with the very heavy responsibility of determining what the subsistence basis should be. Therefore, what I am saying is nothing more than common sense in the carrying out of the Board's duties.

Mr. Sloan: That is another story entirely.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member may believe so, but I have said what I have said and it will be on record in Hansard. There is no inconsistency whatever.
Not only has the Debate had the advantage that we shall be able to inform the Board what Members think about them, but it is also to the advantage of the Government to be told by Members what they think about a particular large social issue. More than that the House would not expect me to say to-day. I have pointed out that the real concern of Members in all parts has, in my judgment, been that the next step to be taken about old age pensions should be the right step, and until the Government have made their views clear in relation to the Beveridge Report, I have nothing further to say at the moment.
There is one thing, however, I would like to say about the cost of living. The

hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walk-den) used an inaccurate term about the cost of living in 1908, namely, that it was on a false basis. I do not agree with him, because when I was at the Ministry of Labour it fell to my lot to have an investigation made, the biggest in this or in any other country. We found that, although it was completely up-to-date at that time, between 1936 and 1938 the net result of that large investigation was not very far different from that of the original limited one of 1908. But there is force in the point when you are dealing with war conditions, because you are dealing with things in respect of which the State pays subsidies to keep the cost of living down and when, in other cases, there are articles in the cost of living which are rationed and regulated in price. There are other items which are desirable from the point of view of the household which are not on the rationed list and, therefore, are not so easily obtainable.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is it disputed that there has been since 1939 a definite change in the diet of the people which has, unfortunately, meant that unrationed goods in many cases have meant a definite increase in the cost of living for every homestead in the land?

Mr. Brown: I would not like to be responsible for that statement. I am sure that the arrangements made, on the advice of the Health Departments for England and Wales and Scotland, by the Minister of Food have meant an improvement in the diet for the whole mass of our people. Of course, there is point in what the hon. Member says that you have things outside the cost-of-living scale and factors that come into it which may not be so simple for the people with smaller incomes. I will call the attention of the Minister of Labour to the point, and I have no doubt the Board will take note of it.
It is very remarkable that complaints about the Assistance Board have become less and less, and have been becoming less and less regularly from 1936 onwards. I am sure the House will desire to pay a tribute to the sympathetic way in which they have attempted to exercise their discretion and to apply the Regulations. I should like to put it on record that every pensioner to whom a pension is granted, or whose case is reviewed, has a right of


appeal if he is dissatisfied with the way his means have been asssessed. Over 2,000,000 assessments are made every year, and the number of appeals is extraordinarily small. In the six months ending June last year there were 5,000 appeals, and in the six months ending December 3,500. Only 5 or 6 enquiries or complaints a week are received at headquarters from Members of Parliament, a considerable number of them on technical matters. Complaints from individual pensioners are likewise few in number, and it is rarely that an explanation fails to satisfy the pensioner, at least to the extent of showing that his case has been fairly and properly dealt with. Some complaints are dealt with by the Board's local officers, and, where they take the form of dissatisfaction with the amount of a supplementary pension, they are treated as appeals unless the explanation given in answer to the letter satisfies the writer. I understand that, although the exact number cannot be given, it is very small.
The suggestion has been made that a lot of people could be got from the Assistance Board in aid of the man-power situation. At the moment the staff is just under 10,000 over the whole field of Great Britain. In addition to dealing with unemployment assistance and supplementary pensions, the Board has very heavy responsibilities, for the most part potential but not wholly so, for post-raid assistance. Hon. Members will know how valuable that is, and I think it will be seen that the suggestion could not be carried out. We will pass on all the suggestions that have been made in the Debate to the Board, and I am sure they will take notice of them.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with my question about the widow who is entitled to a higher degree of entitlement.

Mr. Brown: I am sure I should have been called to Order if I had referred to that. It would require an Act of Parliament to alter the position.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We have had a controversy about the Beveridge Report and a statement that the Government are considering it. We are getting very perturbed, and I want to make my protest. Shortly we shall be discussing another Bill,

on workmen's compensation, in which the Government have extracted a bit from the Beveridge Report and put it into the Bill, and the Minister has suggested that we can make an extract from it in this matter. They cannot have it both ways. Either they accept the Beveridge Report or they do not. I protest against taking parts of it. The only other thing I want to say is that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman replied to the main question, whether we shall after the Recess have this codification and simplification, and we hope increased scales, available to the House.

Mr. Buchanan: May I say a word about complaints? The Minister must not be too casual about them and say there are only so many a week. I could send him piles of complaints if necessary. With regard to the Board itself, it is true that their treatment has improved, but it is not altogether true to say that all the credit belongs to the Board. It is partly due to Parliamentary activity and to general activity throughout the country. The Board have modified their views because public opinion has compelled them to do so. May I press the right hon. Gentleman on another issue—

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved,
That the Draft of the Special Order, proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Cheltenham and District Gas Company, which was presented on 15th July and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Mr. Buchanan: May I press the Minister on the point raised by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)? Are we sure to get this new codification when we come back after the Recess? It is terribly important, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some further guarantee.

Mr. Brown: I am always glad to meet the House and my hon. Friend, but I cannot say more than that the Board will produce the simplification and codification as quickly as it can be done, and then it will be open for Debate in the House.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. Gentleman has now given a guarantee that the Board will do it as soon as they can. What I do not want is a long drawn out dispute, such as might very well take place between Government Departments and the Board, while in the meanwhile the pensioners are suffering. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the House will get the codification at an early date?

Mr. Brown: I cannot go further than I have done. The Board will do it as early as it is possible to do it, and we will do the same.

HOSPITAL NURSES (RUSHCLIFFE COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Messer: It is with great reluctance that I add to the labours of the Minister to-day. Whatever may have been said about him, it is only fair to say that he has shown great patience during the whole Debate. If it were net for the interest I take in the subject to which I want to refer, I would forego the pleasure of raising it here. On 18th March I asked a Question of the Minister of Health with reference to the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee. That Committee reported and made recommendations which had for their object the improvement of the conditions of nurses. I am bound to say that what the Rushcliffe Committee did was a big step forward. It is the first time in the history of this country that there has been any attempt to have anything like a national standard of salaries and emoluments for members of the nursing profession. I am also bound to say I think the Minister too hurriedly put the recommendations of the Committee into operation. He should first have seen what sort of response was made to these recommendations, what were the reactions of the people affected by them, and then, if necessary, have amended the recommendations. I cannot believe that this House of Commons will agree that, because a Committee is called into existence for the purpose of investigating

something and it makes recommendations, those recommendations must of necessity be implemented without amendment. To do so would mean that the House of Commons was surrendering its rights, that all that was necessary was to call into existence a committee and automatically put their recommendations into operation.
I know what the Minister will say in answer. He will say, in the first place, "This is a representative committee, and who am I, as an individual, to determine that a representative committee is wrong? Here are representatives of the employing bodies and representatives of the nurses themselves." I am going to be bold enough to say the Committee was not representative. The recommendations of that Committee concern in the main female nurses, but the Committee comprised only 12 women nurses and 28 men, and there was not one working nurse among them. I also think the Committee had in mind what may be a general custom, but one which is dying out, and of which sufficient notice was not given, with the result that anomalies are bound to exist. What the Minister will say is that the recommendations will cost £2,000,000, and to add £2,000,000 to the salaries of nurses must in the nature of things be an improvement. I am prepared to agree that it is an improvement, but it is not the sum total that is so important as its distribution. For instance, matrons can get as much as £900 a year in salary and emoluments. Ward sisters' salaries range from £130 to £180, plus emoluments, bringing them up to about £220. I hope the Minister will forgive me, because I am depending on my memory. I did not know I was to have the Adjournment and I am not armed with notes.
Anyone who knows anything about hospitals knows that the ward sister is the key officer of a hospital. It does not matter very much how clever your surgical staff is or what type of organiser you have as matron; from the standpoint of the patient, if you have not an efficient ward sister you have an inefficient hospital. In my view the ward sister is being underpaid, even under the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee. It is true to say the recommendations would give a vast increase in many cases, but that is only a measure of the very poor pay previously. They were so underpaid that the recommendations do represent a very big increase in some quarters.


What is unfortunate is that, as a consequence of the change which takes place, there is a definite tendency on the part of trained nurses who become ward sisters to leave that work and become administrative sisters. The attraction is in the higher salaries, higher emoluments and higher living-out allowances.
Ward sisters are, in point of fact, more important than what are known as sister tutors. The sister tutor, who gets a higher salary than the ward sister, is responsible for part of the training of the nurses. In the main the sister tutor deals with the theoretical side, but the ward sister is engaged in practical educational work every moment of the day she is in the ward. It is her work in addition to the organisation of the ward, and in that she has to be careful to satisfy the medical superintendent or senior surgeon, to be careful to satisfy the matron—and matrons are not all angels in disguise—to satisfy the specialists and to satisfy the patients. The ward sister very often has a staff to control and some of them who are just beginning are, naturally, inefficient, but the inefficiency and the responsibility do not fall on those student nurses, but upon the ward sister. There is no time for me to develop that particular aspect of the matter, but there is sufficient evidence, if one had time to do so, to show that the ward sister has been very sadly neglected in this connection.
The next point to which I would refer—and this is a point of some substance—is that the Rushcliffe recommendations lay down certain allowances for nurses who live out, and it was to this matter that I was referring when I said that custom was changing. The Rushcliffe Committee appeared to assume that we were going to continue the custom of nurses living within the hospital, but in point of fact there is a tendency for authorities to have a large section of the staff living outside. It is true to say that with student nurses, many of whom are girls of 18 and who come from long distances and are far removed from their homes, it is better that they should be accommodated in the nurses' home attached to the hospital. But with a nurse who has gone through her training, and has become a State registered nurse, and a staff nurse, and who is a woman with some responsibility, there is no reason why she should

be treated differently from a woman or girl, working in an ordinary industry, who, can live an ordinary life in an ordinary home. Some authorities, not because they are compelled from lack of accommodation to do so, have made it their policy to permit their staffs to live outside.
The recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee—again I speak from memory, and everybody knows that figures are not easy to memorise, so perhaps any slight error may be forgiven—suggested that the living-out allowances should be £70 in the case of a sister, £65 for State registered nurses and £55 for assistant nurses. Anybody with knowledge of billeting knows that you cannot billet for those, sums. What sort of accommodation can you find for £70? You will find that the hospital is in a locality in which the houses are, in general, very much alike. Are you to fix up accommodation for a sister at £70 a year and then say to the next-door neighbour: "This accommodation will not he for a sister but for a staff nurse, so we can only afford £65," or "This is only for an assistant nurse and we can only afford £55"?

Mr. E. Brown: It would be £65 there also.

Mr. Messer: So my memory was wrong. There is a difference. I thought I remembered three divisions, but I am quite prepared to accept it, that my figures may be wrong.

Mr. Brown: Just to help the hon. Member I would remind him that the allowances for living out were: £70 for a ward sister and £65 for an assistant nurse, in categories A, C and D. The £55 is for others employed in nursing in a hospital or institution.

Mr. Messer: It shows that there is a variety of living out allowances.

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Mr. Messer: You cannot cater for those differences when you attempt to find billets. Without mentioning a figure, I say that there is a variation. The important point is, in what position is an authority placed, even one which is making the boarding-out of its staff part of its policy? They can only pay £70 for the ward sister. It simply cannot be done. I am anxious to get the Minister to agree to a figure that will have some relation to what can be


done. I was reading quite recently the advertisement columns of the newspapers, and I found that for ordinary boarding, £2 a week was being asked. If that is the case, really, the figures in the Rushcliffe Report require further consideration. The Rushcliffe Committee has considered the case on the basis of a communal life in a nurses' home attached to a hospital. Clearly what you can do there is very different from what you can do when you are boarding out nurses. We say to our nurses, "We will give you your salary, and we will give you additional salary to cover your emoluments." As the Minister knows, emoluments do not count for Income Tax. If we pay the nurses in cash, they have to pay Income Tax. The authority which I represent will have to pay these nurses and the nurses have figured that they will pay £24 a year in Income Tax. I do think that the Rushcliffe recommendations required a little more consideration before they were put into operation.
There is another very important point and I want the Minister to give this very careful consideration. In answer to a Question in the House he stated that the qualification justifying the amount recommended would be that of State registration. It was assumed, therefore, at the beginning that all State-registered nurses would be entitled to the Rushcliffe scale. Then, later, a decision was made in regard to matrons. The Minister of Health decided that notwithstanding the fact that they may be State-registered nurses, matrons of public assistance institutions were not entitled to the same as matrons of ordinary hospitals. There are some public institutions in which there are quite a lot of sick people and where the matron must be a trained nurse. There ate many public assistance institutions where even if the inmates are not in a chronic condition of illness they are in a condition of infirmity which borders on it, and it is necessary to have a State registered nurse, a trained nurse, in control of the institution. But just because they happen to be matrons of public assistance institutions and not of a hospital, they are not entitled to the benefits of the Rushcliffe recommendations.
I am sorry to have taken so long and will conclude with one point. The Minister has not even implemented the whole of the Rushcliffe recommendations and it

does seem a little inconsistent that he should have said, "I am putting this into operation, because it was recommended by a representative committee" and then have reserved a question merely because the official body connected with the section concerned does not agree. I am referring to what I regard as one of the most important aspects of the nursing service. If a nurse trains in the nursing of fever patients she can get a fever certificate, and she is entitled to go on the supplemetnary register. If a nurse runs the risk—and there is a risk, notwithstanding statistics, which are not borne out in actual fact—of training in the nursing of tubercular patients and gets a Tubercular Association certificate, she cannot go on the supplementary register. Even the Rushcliffe Committee, on which there were representatives of the Royal College of Nurses and the Trades Union Congress, as well as of hospital authorities, saw the necessity of giving some status to the nurse holding the Tubercular Association certificate. That has not been put into operation. They recommended that she should go on the supplementary register, but the General Nursing Council opposed it, and therefore she has no status at all.
I have said sufficient to show that there is seine justification for this matter being aired at greater length. I am disappointed that we were not able to get a full day's discussion on it. A great deal more can be said about certain anomalies. Let it not be thought that I am unmindful of certain advantages. We are striving for perfection in an imperfect world, but the fact that we cannot attain that perfection should not prevent us from getting as near to it as possible. I look forward to the day when we can give the nursing profession the best possible conditions. The value of that service is beyond our estimate. May I express the hope that the matter is not yet completed, but that on certain points we may get some encouragement from the Minister as to the prospect of improvement in what at the moment is rather a regrettable position?

Mr. Bernard Taylor: I hesitate to intervene and so prevent the Minister from having the maximum amount of time to reply to my hon. Friend. I would like to say however in support of all the points my hon. Friend has made, that the implementation of the


Rushcliffe Report has caused a lot of perturbation among the local authorities. The reason for that is the difference that the Committee has shown to exist between the matron at the top and the nurses at the bottom. I regret that an opportunity has not been given to the House for a fuller Debate on this very important question, when it is absolutely necessary that conditions should be made more attractive to encourage recruits into the nursing profession. If the Minister can assure us that on some future occasion we can debate this more fully, some of the anomalies contained in the Rushcliffe Report can be brought before this House. Owing to the lateness of the hour and my desire, in courtesy to the Minister, to allow the Minister time to reply, I will leave the matter at that.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has been very patient on this question, and I think he will agree that so have I. He and I have arrived here several times and found that there has been no Adjournment Debate. To-day there has been, so far as I am concerned, a very long Adjournment Debate. I cannot, in the seven minutes left to me, go too much into detail. I would say, in answer to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), that this subject might have been discussed on my Estimates, but it was not called for then, although my Estimates were asked for several times. It is not for me to say what should be discussed on my Estimates—I get only a hint. It might be well, if we do discuss this question, that we should bring out not only the anomalies in the Report, but the great advance that has been made on the whole question. I say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has said at Question time that my attitude has been obstructive in regard to nurses. I greatly resent that. Nothing could be further from the fact.
The Rushcliffe Committee is a very important Committee. I come to this straight away, so that the House may know just how representative this Committee was. It was set up after the fullest possible discussion—it took us months—with all the organisations concerned, and it is fully representative of nurses and

employers. The nurses organisations represented were the Royal College of Nursing, the Trades Union Congress, the National Association of Local Government Officers, the Association of Hospital Matrons and the Royal British Nurses Association. The employers' organisations represented were the British Hospitals Association, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the London County Council, the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, and the Queen's Institute of District Nursing. The House will see that it would be very difficult to get a more representative body of men and women, and it was not due to me that there were not more women. The organisations themselves were asked to nominate for themselves. They all did nominate, and I accepted the nominations and was fortunate to get my friend Lord Rushcliffe to take the chairmanship.
The Committee not only gave us a Report on nurses, but it is to give us another Report on midwives. It is true, as the hon. Member for South Tottenham said, that it cannot be assumed that because the Government set up a committee and that committee gives a report it is necessarily the duty of the Government to accept everything in the report. But when a Committee has spent 15 solid months going through all the various categories of nurses—and they are many, as those who have seen the full Report of the Committee will realise—meeting in two panels as they do, a panel of employees and a panel of employers, not always agreeing, but coming together, meeting, modifying and enlarging views—once they have gone into a highly technical problem like this, the Minister wants great justification for turning down their recommendations. I will go further and say that I feel personally that, since the Athlone Committee's Report has been in the hands of the Government since a little before the war and was necessarily laid aside because the war broke out, it was very important on this particular side of the Committee's work that we should take the swiftest action possible. I do not bind myself on any future occasion or any successor of mine to accept everything that the Rushcliffe Committee, may recommend on other subjects. What I do say is that, if there is not a ward sister


on the Committee, the fault is not mine but surely that of the trade union organisations. [Interruption.] Perhaps I ought not to bring in the word "fault." They overlooked it or did not share my hon. Friend's view and that of those who think with him. There are important bodies who think with him that there should be a ward sister there. But the fault this time is not that of the Minister or the Government.
There is no doubt whatever that anybody who thinks these things out will see that there is a great deal in the Report. There are some who say that one particular branch of nursing got too much. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mansfield drew a distinction between the nurse and the matron. One of the great things that has impressed itself

upon me all the time I have been Minister of Health and Secretary of State for Scotland is the extraordinary capability and character of the matrons of our hospitals. So I hope we will not go that way. Let us rather say that if we are dissatisfied, we will have a little more for those lower down. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes"] But the hon. Member for Mansfield did not come to that. He was drawing a distinction which I hope will not be drawn in any of our future Debates. At the moment I cannot see any justification for altering the major things, and the same applies to those living out—

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.